Thursday, November 19, 2009

Aerie Report, November 19, 2009

Sheesh! I managed to make it back to the Aerie a little after 2 PM yesterday after a lovely drive. No clouds, lots of sun and light traffic made it enjoyable. The only thing that stank was the $2.90 per gallon I paid for gasoline as I started out. Thank you President Spend and Print!

******

One good thing about driving between Noon and 3 PM is the talk radio. Yeah, I'm a bit of a ditto-head. Like to hear him pontificate, but finding more and more that he's a day or so behind the blogs that I frequent. (And which he often sites as sources.) And I find some of his callers to be just a tad, well, looney. I'll hut the radio off maybe five or six times just to regain my sanity as I listen.

******

Oh, and the other thing that ticked me off was the change in heart the weatherman apparently has had. Tuesday, the rains showers were supposed to happen on Friday. Yesterday they moved them up to Thursday afternoon and early Friday morning. And they bumped the odds from 40% up to 70%. Since the stuff is coming from the southwest, that means it will be raining at the Aerie earlier...perhaps as early as my departure after my PT.

It's currently foggy as all get out with the "ceiling" at around 1900 feet. Since the Aerie is at 2100 feet that means we're in the clouds. Sort of a Shangri-La moment, if you will. Who knows what's happening down in the valley below? IS there a valley below?

******

The Tiadaghton Audubon Society diner last night was a small affair. Only about 25 people were in attendance to hear one of the two men who work on endangered species within the PA Game Commission. I kept my mouth shut--mostly--and only challenged him a couple of times. Once after he harped on the fact that many raptors were shot in the 1800s and early 1900s because shooters didn't like them. (Hello?! Can you say bounty paid for by the state? Hard times? Loss of chickens, turkeys and other small critters that would have been either supplying breakfast or serving as dinner to hawks and owls?) And again when he started on our "destroying habitat". We don't destroy habitat. We change it. Sometimes this benefits a species, sometimes it doesn't. He mentioned the changes after around 1870 or so and I brought up the number of farms that went back to forest around that time as men either did not return from the Civil War or opted for 1) higher education 2) city/factory life. Coupled with the mechanization of farming practices, the old sloppy hedgerow disappeared either into the woods or under the plow. Either way, species who found the hedgerowed farm ideal habitat had to move on.

I'll think on this a bit more and perhaps start writing a few posts about what is wrong with our approach to wildlife management and the use of key phrases that are geared to stir up the pot but are too often misused.

******

I've my PT in a little over an hour. Then it will be a quick lunch and back to the Bolt Hole.

3 comments:

Richard said...

I think one of the things that is totally out of whack today is the way government thinks about things. They come up with something off the wall and then go and find someone who agrees with them and then jams it down our throats as fact. Global warming and health care top the list.

threecollie said...

THANK YOU JOATED!!!
What a great post. Our hunter in chief is dropping out of fisheries and wildlife and switching into agricultural engineering because he simply can't stand the liberal and so often totally illogical, if not downright wrong, bias of his professors. Having to swallow global warming whole and spit out papers supporting the government lockstep viewpoint has proven to be too much for him. It makes so so sad...I will miss spending the whole evening milking time helping him learn his Latin names and talking about wildlife biology. I don't blame him a bit though. I hope you do continue with more posts in this vein. I look forward to them.

Rev. Paul said...

Is there a valley down there? No, "they" moved it while you slept. (Sorry, couldn't resist.)

$2.90/gallon would represent a 41 cent reduction here - I'd be happy to pay only that much.

Re: your political observation, you're spot on, as usual. Bad science, no science, and no evidence = new public policy & higher taxes to "fix" problems which exist only in the minds of power-hungry elitists.