Early Winter Banter, Observations & General Discussion 2017

[ORH_wxman]

2 minutes ago, tamarack said:

Unfortunately, there are some who fit that description.  It's a tiny minority, but it only takes one to cause a tragedy.  Maine had a non-hunter fatality in Hebron (10 miles NW of LEW) earlier this month, a lady in her own yard/woodlot - have not read anything about what she was wearing, but last I read, the hunter was being charged under the "identify your target" law.  Put in place 25+ years back, it puts the burden of proof for target ID on the shooter rather than on the victim, or on the state attorney should criminal charges be brought.  It was Maine's 1st fatal hunting accident in 4 years, and IIRC the first non-hunter fatal since the infamous Karen Woods tragedy in Hermon (town west of BGR) in 1988.   It's certainly no comfort to victims' families, but before jumping on the pile one should contrast the dangers from 150,000+ hunters (about the Maine cohort) compared to injuries/fatalities from ATVs/snowmobiles/boating.

Hunters all over the hood getting their deer.  Hate it as I'm a relocated Boston Metro guy that loves seeing the wildlife. 

I'm blessed to have added 60 lb of low fat organic meat to my freezer last week.  More to the point, from about your (and my) location south, where deer-restrictive snowpack rarely lasts long enough to cause serious winter kill, deer can and often do become so populous that their herbivory results in tremendous ecosystem damage.  As one example, the 2 million acres managed by the PA Bureau of Forestry nearly flunked their forest sustainability audit because deer were eating nearly all tree regeneration.  Given the absence of large predators and the social implications of trying to bring them back (our cats, dogs, and goats - or worse - would be a lot easier prey), some sort of population control is necessary.  In some mid-Atlantic municipal/state parks, the managers think of deer as "hooved locusts."

I always say it. Bring back the eastern cougar. (yeah, I know it's not happening anytime soon)

[Cold Miser]

2 minutes ago, tamarack said:

Unfortunately, there are some who fit that description.  It's a tiny minority, but it only takes one to cause a tragedy.  Maine had a non-hunter fatality in Hebron (10 miles NW of LEW) earlier this month, a lady in her own yard/woodlot - have not read anything about what she was wearing, but last I read, the hunter was being charged under the "identify your target" law.  Put in place 25+ years back, it puts the burden of proof for target ID on the shooter rather than on the victim, or on the state attorney should criminal charges be brought.  It was Maine's 1st fatal hunting accident in 4 years, and IIRC the first non-hunter fatal since the infamous Karen Woods tragedy in Hermon (town west of BGR) in 1988.   It's certainly no comfort to victims' families, but before jumping on the pile one should contrast the dangers from 150,000+ hunters (about the Maine cohort) compared to injuries/fatalities from ATVs/snowmobiles/boating.

Hunters all over the hood getting their deer.  Hate it as I'm a relocated Boston Metro guy that loves seeing the wildlife. 

I'm blessed to have added 60 lb of low fat organic meat to my freezer last week.  More to the point, from about your (and my) location south, where deer-restrictive snowpack rarely lasts long enough to cause serious winter kill, deer can and often do become so populous that their herbivory results in tremendous ecosystem damage.  As one example, the 2 million acres managed by the PA Bureau of Forestry nearly flunked their forest sustainability audit because deer were eating nearly all tree regeneration.  Given the absence of large predators and the social implications of trying to bring them back (our cats, dogs, and goats - or worse - would be a lot easier prey), some sort of population control is necessary.  In some mid-Atlantic municipal/state parks, the managers think of deer as "hooved locusts."

lol. Why should the victim have to prove anything, especially in her own yard?  And what would the situation been like if she were killed during a time before this law?  Would her family have had to prove something against the shooter?  That just sounds insane.

[Cold Miser]

2 minutes ago, ORH_wxman said:

I always say it. Bring back the eastern cougar. (yeah, I know it's not happening anytime soon)

https://cougarlife.com/

[Refine search to east coast locales]

[Sugarloaf1989]

WU shows Mt Snow summit at 34F and the webcam shows wet snow falling. This is at 3,583'.

[tamarack]

Just now, ORH_wxman said:

I always say it. Bring back the eastern cougar. (yeah, I know it's not happening anytime soon)

Lot of folks claim it's already here.  (There have been numerous credible sightings in New England, plus that one truly wild Midwest wanderer killed in SNE.  However, there are also people who acquire - usually outside the law - cougar kitties and then get tired of the food bills and turn the critters loose.  I've not seen any evidence of a breeding wild population in New England.) 

[tamarack]

4 minutes ago, Cold Miser said:

lol. Why should the victim have to prove anything, especially in her own yard?  And what would the situation been like if she were killed during a time before this law?  Would her family have had to prove something against the shooter?  That just sounds insane.

It's called "the presumption of innocence", and though in this case it seems unjust, it's a bedrock principle here.  (As I'm sure you are well aware.)

[Baroclinic Zone]

1.20"

[kdxken]

8 minutes ago, Baroclinic Zone said:

1.20"

lots and lots of rain.

[#NoPoles]

Myself and a few coworkers had hoped to take a trip to climb at the Adventure Park in Bridgeport CT this Saturday. Does Saturday look like a washout, or will it be ok?

[CoastalWx]

20 minutes ago, #NoPoles said:

Myself and a few coworkers had hoped to take a trip to climb at the Adventure Park in Bridgeport CT this Saturday. Does Saturday look like a washout, or will it be ok?

It's a go.

[NorEastermass128]

Happy Thanksgiving Eve all!  Be safe!

[RUNNAWAYICEBERG]

1 hour ago, Cold Miser said:

lol. Why should the victim have to prove anything, especially in her own yard?  And what would the situation been like if she were killed during a time before this law?  Would her family have had to prove something against the shooter?  That just sounds insane.

It’s the wild wild west...shoot first, ask questions later.

I won’t deny anyone the “right” to own a gun and shoot animals if it warms their inner being and completes their purpose in life....but the minute you “accidentally” shoot any of my family members, you won’t make it to court to prove your innocence. 

Anyone in possession of a firearm should be held to a higher standard ie, pass vigorous mental, physical, criminal, and common sense checks/tests. If you fok up, pay the consequences. There should not be a “it was an accident” clause. Just like drunk driving. You kill someone (you obviously did not mean to it was an accident) minimum 15 years in prison, no debate. 

Sick of the grey area, sick of the excuses. 

[gravitylover]

2 hours ago, tamarack said:

I'm blessed to have added 60 lb of low fat organic meat to my freezer last week.  More to the point, from about your (and my) location south, where deer-restrictive snowpack rarely lasts long enough to cause serious winter kill, deer can and often do become so populous that their herbivory results in tremendous ecosystem damage.  As one example, the 2 million acres managed by the PA Bureau of Forestry nearly flunked their forest sustainability audit because deer were eating nearly all tree regeneration.  Given the absence of large predators and the social implications of trying to bring them back (our cats, dogs, and goats - or worse - would be a lot easier prey), some sort of population control is necessary.  In some mid-Atlantic municipal/state parks, the managers think of deer as "hooved locusts."

Most of the areas that I mountain bike in the lower and mid Hudson Valley have pretty much no undergrowth anymore. It wasn't all that long ago that the forests appeared to be much more dense and lush than they do now. At the peak of the growing season you have long sight lines and the light is much better than I ever remember it being in the past. There are relatively few deer hunters out there now compared to ten years ago which I think is a big factor in the huge deer population growth but strangely enough the number of bird hunters has skyrocketed in the last three years to the point that the DEC is stocking more than double the number of birds that they used to locally.

[tamarack]

33 minutes ago, RUNNAWAYICEBERG said:

It’s the wild wild west...shoot first, ask questions later.

I won’t deny anyone the “right” to own a gun and shoot animals if it warms their inner being and completes their purpose in life....but the minute you “accidentally” shoot any of my family members, you won’t make it to court to prove your innocence. 

Anyone in possession of a firearm should be held to a higher standard ie, pass vigorous mental, physical, criminal, and common sense checks/tests. If you fok up, pay the consequences. There should not be a “it was an accident” clause. Just like drunk driving. You kill someone (you obviously did not mean to it was an accident) minimum 15 years in prison, no debate. 

Sick of the grey area, sick of the excuses. 

Quite the rant, though the banter thread is certainly the appropriate place.  Some thoughts:

1st sentence - When a radical Islamist carries out terrorism, do you conclude that all Moslems are terrorists?  That's what seems to be implied about gun owners.  I hope it was intentional hyperbole.

Next paragraph - More hyperbole, I hope, particularly the "won't make it to court" part, which adds to Lewis Carroll's "Verdict first, trial later" by inserting "execution" between.  The other part of that paragraph reeks of total contempt for any subhuman who would shoot an animal.  ("Subhuman" being defined as anyone who would hunt.)

The 15-year minimum sentence - Citing drunk driving seems to infer that all hunters are similarly impaired, at least mentally.  What about the stone sober driver going 10 mph under the limit but hits black ice, resulting in a fatal accident?  15 years plus?

And life, unfortunately, is full of grey areas.  We can agree (agreeably, I hope) to disagree.

[RUNNAWAYICEBERG]

15 minutes ago, tamarack said:

Quite the rant, though the banter thread is certainly the appropriate place.  Some thoughts:

1st sentence - When a radical Islamist carries out terrorism, do you conclude that all Moslems are terrorists?  That's what seems to be implied about gun owners.  I hope it was intentional hyperbole.

Next paragraph - More hyperbole, I hope, particularly the "won't make it to court" part, which adds to Lewis Carroll's "Verdict first, trial later" by inserting "execution" between.  The other part of that paragraph reeks of total contempt for any subhuman who would shoot an animal.  ("Subhuman" being defined as anyone who would hunt.)

The 15-year minimum sentence - Citing drunk driving seems to infer that all hunters are similarly impaired, at least mentally.  What about the stone sober driver going 10 mph under the limit but hits black ice, resulting in a fatal accident?  15 years plus?

And life, unfortunately, is full of grey areas.  We can agree (agreeably, I hope) to disagree.

You read too literal. 

Life is full of grey but we can limit it regarding guns, drunk driving, etc. Too many excuses and too many people like yourself who take the gun issue personal. Nowhere did I say all gun owners are mentally impaired or that “all mulsims are terrorists” lol. I mean, this is the problem right here. Holy moly what mindset. You can’t accept the fact most people don’t want guns around....but that is NOT a knock on your civil liberty or your passion to responsibly kill a deer and thus feed your family for a week. Congrats, great. No one is trying to take that away from you. 

It’s ok to be a gun owner and understand the “other side”. I own one, 

[Baroclinic Zone]

1.37".  Slowly creeping up.

[#NoPoles]

2inches

[CoastalWx]

.7 here.

[weathafella]

1 hour ago, #NoPoles said:

2inches

Took all day.  Hawaii does that in 15 minutes.

[tamarack]

2 hours ago, RUNNAWAYICEBERG said:

You read too literal. 

Life is full of grey but we can limit it regarding guns, drunk driving, etc. Too many excuses and too many people like yourself who take the gun issue personal. Nowhere did I say all gun owners are mentally impaired or that “all mulsims are terrorists” lol. I mean, this is the problem right here. Holy moly what mindset. You can’t accept the fact most people don’t want guns around....but that is NOT a knock on your civil liberty or your passion to responsibly kill a deer and thus feed your family for a week. Congrats, great. No one is trying to take that away from you. 

It’s ok to be a gun owner and understand the “other side”. I own one, 

Well, you're probably partly right with this, but I did assume hyperbole, a useful (and non-literal) way to reinforce a point.  And I'm not all that sure that "most people don't want guns around", though with our increasingly urban population that may indeed be the case.  I certainly accept that you aren't trying to "take that away from [me]."  However, there are a lot of people in the country, many in powerful places, who very much wish to take that away, up to and including repeal of the 2nd amendment.  Of course, that's not going to happen - getting the super majority thru Congress and ratification by at least 38 states is an impossible dream.  I may be a bit paranoid (about lots of things ) but not THAT paranoid. 

The comment about "if it warms their inner being and completes their purpose in life" seemed headed in the direction of those pseudo-psychologists who conclude that guns are nothing else but extensions of male sexual capacity.  Obviously, you're not part of that clique. 

[Baroclinic Zone]

1.52"

[RUNNAWAYICEBERG]

1 hour ago, tamarack said:

Well, you're probably partly right with this, but I did assume hyperbole, a useful (and non-literal) way to reinforce a point.  And I'm not all that sure that "most people don't want guns around", though with our increasingly urban population that may indeed be the case.  I certainly accept that you aren't trying to "take that away from [me]."  However, there are a lot of people in the country, many in powerful places, who very much wish to take that away, up to and including repeal of the 2nd amendment.  Of course, that's not going to happen - getting the super majority thru Congress and ratification by at least 38 states is an impossible dream.  I may be a bit paranoid (about lots of things ) but not THAT paranoid. 

The comment about "if it warms their inner being and completes their purpose in life" seemed headed in the direction of those pseudo-psychologists who conclude that guns are nothing else but extensions of male sexual capacity.  Obviously, you're not part of that clique. 

It would be a great achievement if we could repeal the 2nd ammendment...just think, you could still hunt but with a bow and arrow instead. A true “hunter” in a sense, without the colateral damage of gun deaths and mass shootings. How about that, a win-win. 

[CoastalWx]

1 minute ago, RUNNAWAYICEBERG said:

It would be a great achievement if we could repeal the 2nd ammendment...just think, you could still hunt but with a bow and arrow instead. A true “hunter” in a sense, without the colateral damage of gun deaths and mass shootings. How about that, a win-win. 

Yeah I don't get the gun fetish either in this country, but to each his own. 

[Damage In Tolland]

.36.

Xmas lights are up.

Get Xmas tree on Friday .

FeStivus is here.

if only wx would follow suit 

[CoastalWx]

Looks like .78 in Davis but .9" in regular gauge.

[RUNNAWAYICEBERG]

25 minutes ago, CoastalWx said:

Yeah I don't get the gun fetish either in this country, but to each his own. 

The point I was trying to make is that if we cannot completely get rid of them, it is time we up the ante on how one can obtain it, how it must be stored, mandatory yearly tests, classes, etc etc. There is so much more we can do than a “hey you passed a background check here’s your assault rifle”. Take a look other countries like Australia and Japan. It boggles my mind why we cannot follow blueprints that have already been proven to be highly effective in greatly diminishing gun deaths and mass shootings....without taking away a person’s “right to bear arms”. But unfortunately we know why, money rules. 

[TauntonBlizzard2013]

7 hours ago, RUNNAWAYICEBERG said:

It’s the wild wild west...shoot first, ask questions later.

I won’t deny anyone the “right” to own a gun and shoot animals if it warms their inner being and completes their purpose in life....but the minute you “accidentally” shoot any of my family members, you won’t make it to court to prove your innocence. 

Anyone in possession of a firearm should be held to a higher standard ie, pass vigorous mental, physical, criminal, and common sense checks/tests. If you fok up, pay the consequences. There should not be a “it was an accident” clause. Just like drunk driving. You kill someone (you obviously did not mean to it was an accident) minimum 15 years in prison, no debate. 

Sick of the grey area, sick of the excuses. 

The biggest thing I’ve seen, and that you hear a lot in these cases, is the person wasn’t or should have been wearing orange or whatever.

Shouldn’t the hunter take responsibility? That logic seems to just blame the person who was shot. If you can’t tell the difference between a deer and a person... you probably shouldn’t be firing your gun, honestly.

Safety is the sole responsibility of the person with the weapon. 

Hopefully there are consequences in this particular case.

[SJonesWX]

12 hours ago, SJonesWX said:

totally agree on the bolded, the responsibility lies with the hunter.

with that said, if you are anywhere in the woods this time of year, you need to be wearing blaze orange. 

 

9 minutes ago, TauntonBlizzard2013 said:

The biggest thing I’ve seen, and that you hear a lot in these cases, is the person wasn’t or should have been wearing orange or whatever.

Shouldn’t the hunter take responsibility? That logic seems to just blame the person who was shot. If you can’t tell the difference between a deer and a person... you probably shouldn’t be firing your gun, honestly.

Safety is the sole responsibility of the person with the weapon. 

Hopefully there are consequences in this particular case.

i don't think anyone here was blaming the victim (see my post above).charg es have not been filed in this case, its possible (and likely IMO) that they will be. but the facts need to be determined first. 

and regarding the gun/hunting debate above, someone made a very good point that many species need to be held in check. without regulated hunting, there are animal species (such as deer, bear, etc), that would be completely out of control in urban and suburban areas. Like it or not, but if hunting were not allowed, these animals would need to be controlled in other ways. And i am pretty sure that a large % of people don't want to see how that would happen. 

[tamarack]

1 hour ago, TauntonBlizzard2013 said:

The biggest thing I’ve seen, and that you hear a lot in these cases, is the person wasn’t or should have been wearing orange or whatever.

Shouldn’t the hunter take responsibility? That logic seems to just blame the person who was shot. If you can’t tell the difference between a deer and a person... you probably shouldn’t be firing your gun, honestly.

Safety is the sole responsibility of the person with the weapon. 

Hopefully there are consequences in this particular case.

It's just common sense to wear some orange when in the woods or fields during hunting seasons.  To use a somewhat unrelated hypothetical scenario:  It's dark, you're walking on the paved shoulder and wearing all dark clothing.  As I'm driving past, with you being nearly invisible, something slides off the seat and as I reach for it, the car swerves onto the shoulder, tragically.  If you had been wearing some reflective clothing, I'd have noticed you several seconds before approaching you, and would have concentrated on driving straight while letting the object hit the floor.  I'm still 100% responsible but you're 100% dead.  Same with the careless hunter and the victim.

And as for rooting for the 2nd amendment repeal, one should recall how well prohibition worked. 

[TauntonBlizzard2013]

11 minutes ago, tamarack said:

It's just common sense to wear some orange when in the woods or fields during hunting seasons.  To use a somewhat unrelated hypothetical scenario:  It's dark, you're walking on the paved shoulder and wearing all dark clothing.  As I'm driving past, with you being nearly invisible, something slides off the seat and as I reach for it, the car swerves onto the shoulder, tragically.  If you had been wearing some reflective clothing, I'd have noticed you several seconds before approaching you, and would have concentrated on driving straight while letting the object hit the floor.  I'm still 100% responsible but you're 100% dead.  Same with the careless hunter and the victim.

And as for rooting for the 2nd amendment repeal, one should recall how well prohibition worked. 

Right.... I don’t disagree that for safety purposes, someone in the woods right now should wear bright clothing.

And to your analogy... i think it’s a good one to hunting. Ultimately, whether someone is wearing purple, black, yellow, whatever... if I hit them with my car... I’m held responsible... same deal with hunting.

Im not even arguing hunting is bad or anything like that. My point is, a human and a deer look nothing alike. If you are that unsure of what you’re looking at, why shoot?