Jump to content

Gator

Professional
  • Posts

    2,380
  • Joined

  • Last visited

2 Followers

About Gator

  • Birthday 08/19/1967

Contact Methods

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Rush, NY
  • Interests
    Besides hunting and fishing? Volleyball, rod building and sci-fi/fantasy. Oh, and I do a little science on the side...
  • Home Port
    Sandy Creek
  • Boat Name
    Nothing But Net

Recent Profile Visitors

12,718 profile views

Gator's Achievements

475

Reputation

  1. I recall there being a few threads that discuss this topic in even more depth than the excellent suggestions here. Take a quick search and I bet you can find them. We use 8' and 9.5' rods as suggested, short inside deep run toward the stern with rod holders 18" apart on the gunnel. #1 and #3 settings. Don't mix wire and brain or mono. Let things out slowly, avoid gnarly current days.
  2. Okay, that's just funny. I've never tried to type the word S E X in a thread before, and it got changed to fun loving. Obviously I'm not referring to the act but the physical descriptor. Deer don't have gender, since they don't have self-perception, and so the S-word is appropriate. ROFL.
  3. I try to forget my past year's struggles as soon as they're over lol! I keep photos of my DEC bowhunting log from forever, and my records show three weeks in October this year that rotted. This coincides with camera activity. Past years generally had more sightings, but less time overall in the woods too, so it's tough to compare, and there are always factors beyond the pale that impact perceived success. For example, last year during the peak rut it seemed like I couldn't sit in a stand without a neighbor shooting and tracking a deer right under me. Go figure. It's also easy after the season ends and the doe have herded up to have a skewed idea of numbers, particularly if you're on the best food source in town. I will be interested in seeing final harvest numbers from DEC, but even that doesn't tell the entire tale. How many of us here pass on bucks until we see our "shooter"? The bowhunter sightings logs are at least unbiased in terms of your decision-making - it's based on how many of what fun loving deer you see while in the stand, on a per hour, per location basis. I have never tried to access that information myself though. Anybody else tried?
  4. So, from what I know, COVID doesn't have a clinical manifestation in deer. They can carry it, but don't suffer the consequences we do. And I haven't found any dead deer on my properties, despite lots of walking over the past year and a half. We saw and shot more deer this year than most. I've heard similar from a bunch of folks, but the opposite from others. It's seemed like quite the feast or famine out there. Certainly the wife and I saw ample tracks in the snow this afternoon at our Albion property, so they're still around. I suspect that the crazy wet year and lack of mast significantly impacted normal patterns. It's just so tough to tell what's going on from a single year's experience...
  5. Yeah, that makes sense. I've had the broadhead break off inside before. If you positioned in next to the broadhead, or even made a broadhead that had something itself...it might even give you better punch, being slightly heavier. Sounds like an opportunity for a young inventor/investor.
  6. I think that they're still too big to put in an arrow, but interesting idea. Eventually it may be feasible. But in my experience, the arrow either passes through or is lost from most of the deer that I've had to track over any significant distance.
  7. I will weigh in on a point that McWally made which I agree with entirely. It is beyond belief to me that the FDA is making decisions without consulting its advisory board, or even ignoring their recommendations entirely, My lab works on Alzheimer's, and the latest drug that was approved in spite of the board's reservations is IMHO a breach of both confidence and contract with the experts who are supposed to oversee this stuff. If you claim to follow the science, then listen to the scientists. The danger here is that Joe Public loses faith, as is obvious from this conversation. On a related note, the heads of NIH Institutes (and even the current head of the NIH itself, our own home-grown Larry Tabak from URMC) are tasked with serving as a conduit between politicians and scientists. If their messages aren't well-received, then they need to moderate them in order to have any impact whatsoever. It's better to have a seat at the table than not. But this means that they need to be somewhat circumspect in what they say and how they say it. That whole thing about judging not until you've walked a mile in a man's moccasins? Yeah, I think it applies.
  8. I fear that you have made up your mind, and nothing will sway you. I will note however that Fauci very clearly said that he is being made into the face of science, so that there's an easy scapegoat to blame, since it's hard to be mad at a field or concept. And ever since, he's been accused of claiming to be the face of science. It would be laughable if it wasn't so sad. There's a distinction here. But honestly, you are entitled to think and feel however you want. It's good to have folks on either side of the argument - the balance probably makes for a better decision.
  9. Having just posted about trying to understand your rival's position, as a scientist I feel like I need to respond to this, troll-like as it seems. Just to set the record straight. Fauci is the head of a branch of the NIH that has been charged with a very specific mission - to "seek fundamental knowledge about the nature and behavior of living systems and the application of that knowledge to enhance health, lengthen life, and reduce illness and disability." He does not have any legislative authority, beyond the bully pulpit. He can't enact mandates. His job is to advise, and always with the intent of promoting public health first. He has the difficult task of acting as a conduit between scientists and politicians, many who haven't thought about these things since high school biology. He is not self-autonomous, but instead integrates information widely from peer reviewed consensus among folks who have trained their whole life. Like it or lump it, his messages reflect expert opinion. He recognizes, with some humor in fact, that he is a recognizable face for his opponents to castigate. I don't always agree with his opinions or tactics, but I respect him for his service. In fact, I think people's opinion of Fauci speaks more to them than to the man himself.
  10. Yes!!! This overwhelming need to be right - it's the root of our largest problem, that is, the inability to communicate effectively with each other. We don't listen, don't want to admit that our opponents may have valid pointe, don't want to recognize that not everything is black and white. Brian makes a good point above: the devil is in the details. I suspect that most of us are much closer to each other than we think, and that we'd be even closer if we sat down over a beer to talk about this stuff. Online forums are a horrible way to communicate, as they promote dogma and lack nuance. How can you listen if you're not even using your ears lol? But forums like LOU are a great way to report where the fish are biting hint, hint!
  11. You can not trust him all you like, but that still doesn't make everything he says a lie. The goalposts do change. Our understanding evolves, and not being perfect beings, we also make mistakes. By loudly proclaiming your distrust, you simply encourage others to do one better. And the gap widens. I've seem way more accusations of manipulation and fraud this past year than I've actually seen manipulation and fraud. And I will also go out on a limb and say that in my conversations with others, I often find that if I get too technical in what I say, misunderstanding abound. You've got to give Fauchi some credit for having the right background and training to be able to make health care determinations based on science and fact. His record has proven his worth. And one final point. Fauchi has a job. His job is to put the health of the American people first. Would you expect the NRA to consider how guns affect drug violence, and soften their position thereby? No, they are built for one thing, to uphold gun rights. So is Fauchi. It's up to the politicians to weigh his message. If you want to blame someone, point your finger in the right direction.
  12. Apologies if I wasn't fair. I reacted to what I perceived. I suspect that quite a bit of what folks say, even from side to side of the debate, isn't as far apart as it would seem. And I do appreciate it when people think deeply about what these numbers mean - perhaps that is what you are going for, rather than simply spitting out statistics compiled by the pundits. I will respond to your first question. I am continuing to push "the narrative" because it is true. The vaccine protects the vulnerable. It protects them directly by making it less likely that they will end up in a hospital (though admittedly protection diminishes with age), and it protects them indirectly by reducing their risk from being exposed to others. Just because something is not perfect is no reason to dismiss it entirely. Just because someone has told you a lie (and I fully acknowledge that the truth has suffered for the sake of a consistent message during this pandemic, which I disagree with entirely) doesn't mean that everything is a lie. I'm not sure how something that's so entrenched - vaccines protect against severe disease - can be consistently challenged. I have seen nothing that supports such a stance. I was with you on your second question right up until the sexual harassment part of it. Regardless, focusing on NYS # versus Ontario and Germany, there's no reason to doubt any of these, so long as they come from credible sources. Not every locale's experience need be identical. Vaccinated folks can get COVID. Immunity wanes. But there's no reason to think that natural immunity is going to be the answer, It isn't for many viruses, including many strains of coronavirus. I think that the story is still evolving, and that trying to extrapolate answers from what we have results in marginal conclusions at best. IMHO, the jab protects you and those you love. Please feel free to volunteer in the ICU if you feel differently and you may change your mind. I can't support a mandate, as I firmly believe that folks should be able to choose wisely or unwisely as they see fit. But they should at least have access to the most credible, up-to-date, and relevant information in order to come to a well-supported conclusion. I will also mention that I agree 100% that viruses will mutate to become more contagious and less virulent as time goes on, and this is generally how we emerge from these pandemics. But that being the case, wouldn't you rather be one of the last to catch a weakened version than the first? Put me on the wait list, please.
  13. Great job at the bell!! It seems like kids have as many pressures as adults these days. I'm glad she was able to make time to create this memory with you.
  14. Since you've decided to enter my ring, I will take a swing lol. The AHA link you provide as "evidence" is nothing but an unrefereed abstract from a recent meeting "ARTERIOSCLEROSIS, THROMBOSIS, VASCULAR BIOLOGY SESSION TITLE: DAMPS, INFECTION AND CARDIOVASCULAR METABOLISM". If you read the abstract with unbiased eyes, you will note that the changes in inflammatory markers were numerical but not statistical. The sole author of the abstract is a renown author who practices medicine at an elite, "invite-only" clinic in Palm Springs. Can you say agenda? The second link is to a letter to "THE LANCET REGIONAL HEALTH EUROPE", which is a far cry from "THE LANCET", one of the most respected medical journals in the world. Nevertheless, the author makes some valid remarks, concluding that vaccinated individuals can contribute to community transmission of COVID-19, and that this should be considered when making public health decisions. Okay, we've done that. This isn't news. Obviously, you are regurgitating stories that are currently circulating on social media or that the pundits have offered to sway your opinion, without really considering their source or underlying merit. I'm certainly not going to claim to have all the answers - as scientists, we are taught to be critical of everything we think we know - but I can recognize a pig in a prom dress easily enough. Take a step back, breath, and reevaluate. 2022 is a fresh start. Do we really need to continue with all the B.S.? FYI, here's a link to some real, local data on breakthrough cases. This is obviously a public health concern and is being taken very seriously. It does not negate the overwhelming benefits of being vaccinated - which for the record, I am against mandating- however, this is my opinion and not based on facts. https://coronavirus.health.ny.gov/covid-19-breakthrough-data
  15. Because the booster may be mandated in order to fish L. Ontario next year lol...
×
×
  • Create New...