Forum Replies Created

Viewing 20 posts - 1 through 20 (of 488 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • Avatarfowl_attitude
    Participant
    Post count: 602
    Up
    0
    Down

    So we have had a farm pond for 8 years now. I have read a lot of articles on Pond Boss and I have talked to several fishery biologists. The one thing they all told me about introducing something like crayfish, shrimp or even shad is that all it really ends up being is a snack. The fish will devour them in a few days but you don’t see any benefit from it. Scuds might work since they reproduce in a pond. The best thing for a food source is micro organisms for the bluegills and a healthy reproducing bluegill population for the bass. I have put a lot of structure in our pond to get algae to grow on for the micro organisms. That has helped our bluegill growth, which in turn helps our bass.

    The other thing that you have to do is harvest fish. I read one time to think of the pond as a pasture. A pasture or pond will only produce so much food and just like a farmer doesn’t add cattle to the pasture without selling off some cattle first, you need to treat your pond the same way. I tell the guys that fish our pond to take all the 7-8 in blue gills they want. To grow big fish, you have to remove some competition for food. We harvest 10-12 in bass as well. Once those bluegills get to be certain size, the bass can’t eat them, so you have to remove some of the competition so those that are left don’t have to fight so hard for food. Completely goes against what you would do on a public lake, but it doesn’t get public lake fishing pressure.

    Avatarfowl_attitude
    Participant
    Post count: 602
    Up
    0
    Down

    Bow fishing is pretty popular in Iowa. That group might have as much to say about this as the carp anglers association. It’s hard to release a fish over 30 inches when it has been stuck with an arrow.

    Avatarfowl_attitude
    Participant
    Post count: 602
    Up
    0
    Down

    Quote by: BrownItsDown

    Quote by: fowl_attitude

    Quote by: BrownItsDown

    Quote by: fowl_attitude

    Teachers are required by state law to take a Mandatory Reporter of Abuse training (signs of child abuse), blood pathogens (for when kiddos get sick in your class), a restraint/ restriction or isolation (for disciplining children).

    required by our district: a copy right law course (so as to not misuse material in your class)

    Coaches are required by state law to take yearly concussion head trauma course. Head coaches are also required to watch a rules video at the start of their season every year for their sport.

    These courses are about a 45 minute video that you watch and print off a certificate of completion at the end. All of these are yearly except the Child abuse is a 5 year certificate.

    Plus we are required to take 5 credit hours of content to renew our licenses every 5 years.

    Thank you fowl_attitude, THIS is exactly what I was asking for.

    Below, I’ve commented on 4 of the annual training sessions/courses that you have stated are mandatory:
    1. Reporting abuse training is in place to provide protection for school children in your care. Very good. So would self defense training and firearm training.
    2. Blood pathogen training is in place to provide protection for you and the school children in your care. Very good. So would self defense training and firearm training.
    3. Restraint/restriction or isolation training is in place to provide protection for you and the school children in your care. Very good. So would self defense training and firearm training.
    4. Concussion head trauma training is in place to provide protection for the school children in your care. Very good. So would self defense training and firearm training.

    So, now it’s been established that public school teachers are required to take some mandatory training, all of which listed above is designed to protect self and everyone else. Since this has been established, it is not unreasonable to propose mandatory training of any sort, including, but not limited to, self defense training and firearm training.

    Thank you. BID

    Next question? Are you going to pay for these extra training’s? You see a simple list. I see several hours of work that I pay for and am not compensated for. And now you are going to require more training’s that will more than likely never get used. …….That will be the response of most teachers. By the way, who no longer have a bargaining agreement, are no longer getting raises, no longer have a voice in this state. So go ahead and add a few more requirements that cost them money.

    When I made the statement about the bus accident, you replied “no one is coming after the 2nd amendment over a bus accident”. That is really what this discussion is about. You think if we make schools safer, the anti’s will go away. These requirements will only make them stronger. If they have to do gun training, then that just means they are right in their eyes. Like I said, I appreciate the conversation, but it really is the wrong avenue at this time. My thumb is on the pulse. This isn’t going to fly.

    $1,000,000.00 worth of FREE firearms training, offered locally. https://iowasportsman.com/forum/forum/viewtopic.php?showtopic=1017070 This was offered as a gift, of their own free will. Obviously, I can’t say for certain, but I’d be willing to bet that several others would similarly offer their training services for free or a discounted rate.

    Lack of bargaining agreement, raises, voice in this state, etc. are all moot points when it comes to this discussion about measures that should be taken to protect our children within our schools. This is extremely blunt, but if you’re unhappy within your current career choice, and I don’t blame you if you are, then you always have the option to quit and pursue a different career path. We all do.

    Nope, I don’t think anything other than the elimination of all firearms will make the Anti’s go away. Even then, they’d find something to *censored* about… I don’t agree with your last statement about it making the Anti’s stronger, but OK.

    My last post on this thread. First I am perfectly happy with my career choice and love my job. My comment about bargaining had to do with the fact teachers already pay for yearly training’s, do them on their own time, and can’t do anything about it, so adding more is not a good idea. You have an agenda. You asked for opinions. In one statement you say “they won’t be mandated or required” then you say “oh great, required training’s, well then here is another one” I offered my opinion as someone who is actually in the field (keep in mind I have mentioned several times I am pro 2A and an NRA member). I have offered my opinions based on almost 20 years of experience. I have even said I agree with your ideas. I just know they will not be accepted by the majority. You seem to think you can change societies viewpoint on this if you push hard enough. I don’t think so. I wish you luck in that endeavor.

    Avatarfowl_attitude
    Participant
    Post count: 602
    Up
    0
    Down

    Quote by: BrownItsDown

    Quote by: fowl_attitude

    Teachers are required by state law to take a Mandatory Reporter of Abuse training (signs of child abuse), blood pathogens (for when kiddos get sick in your class), a restraint/ restriction or isolation (for disciplining children).

    required by our district: a copy right law course (so as to not misuse material in your class)

    Coaches are required by state law to take yearly concussion head trauma course. Head coaches are also required to watch a rules video at the start of their season every year for their sport.

    These courses are about a 45 minute video that you watch and print off a certificate of completion at the end. All of these are yearly except the Child abuse is a 5 year certificate.

    Plus we are required to take 5 credit hours of content to renew our licenses every 5 years.

    Thank you fowl_attitude, THIS is exactly what I was asking for.

    Below, I’ve commented on 4 of the annual training sessions/courses that you have stated are mandatory:
    1. Reporting abuse training is in place to provide protection for school children in your care. Very good. So would self defense training and firearm training.
    2. Blood pathogen training is in place to provide protection for you and the school children in your care. Very good. So would self defense training and firearm training.
    3. Restraint/restriction or isolation training is in place to provide protection for you and the school children in your care. Very good. So would self defense training and firearm training.
    4. Concussion head trauma training is in place to provide protection for the school children in your care. Very good. So would self defense training and firearm training.

    So, now it’s been established that public school teachers are required to take some mandatory training, all of which listed above is designed to protect self and everyone else. Since this has been established, it is not unreasonable to propose mandatory training of any sort, including, but not limited to, self defense training and firearm training.

    Thank you. BID

    Next question? Are you going to pay for these extra training’s? You see a simple list. I see several hours of work that I pay for and am not compensated for. And now you are going to require more training’s that will more than likely never get used. …….That will be the response of most teachers. By the way, who no longer have a bargaining agreement, are no longer getting raises, no longer have a voice in this state. So go ahead and add a few more requirements that cost them money.

    When I made the statement about the bus accident, you replied “no one is coming after the 2nd amendment over a bus accident”. That is really what this discussion is about. You think if we make schools safer, the anti’s will go away. These requirements will only make them stronger. If they have to do gun training, then that just means they are right in their eyes. Like I said, I appreciate the conversation, but it really is the wrong avenue at this time. My thumb is on the pulse. This isn’t going to fly.

    Avatarfowl_attitude
    Participant
    Post count: 602
    Up
    0
    Down

    Quote by: vettman1

    So the idea about concealed is that no one knows who is carrying a firearm. Don’t force teachers to take training. Let them decide. Some people will and some won’t. The result is that the BG has no idea who is and isn’t carrying. Advantage – to the good guys/gals.

    Don’t give up so easily! Talk to your school leadership. If the schoolboard members don’t like it, vote in ones that will.

    I get what you are saying and I don’t disagree with it at all. I have always said there should be an element of surprise and just knowing would deter things. But that is not how my co-workers and many others around the state think, and it doesn’t make them any less concerned.

    I’ve been through a real lock down situation when it was reported a kid who was not a student in our school had tucked a firearm in his pants. He was here for an after school program. We went into lock down. SWAT came in searched the building found the student and did their thing. It turns out he had tucked a black hat in his waste band and it had shiny bill. I was so impressed with how the situation was handled from the fact someone reported something suspicious to the response time. I am in the parking lot thanking these guys and shaking their hands and glad they are so willing and ready. Other teachers are crying and traumatized by the sight of their weapons. That is the level of difference we are talking about.

    Now in that same scenario. What happens when a teacher has a firearm and this gets reported. Is the teacher now responsible to go look for the kid? Over a hat?

    Avatarfowl_attitude
    Participant
    Post count: 602
    Up
    0
    Down

    It is not as easy as you think. 65% of teachers in our district (we are about the 15-18th largest district in Iowa) are female. They are not necessarily as comfortable with firearms as you and I are. My wife is married to an NRA member and she is not comfortable with firearms. The conversations in my building of 120 teachers have not been “what a great idea”. They have been “are you crazy? What if a student wrestles the firearm away?” ” I don’t want the teacher next to me armed.” You are asking them to accept something they are not comfortable with in the first place. And that is their right. Most of them don’t hunt, don’t shoot, don’t understand why I would be an NRA member. A few of them think teachers like me are part of the problem. So this battle is larger than any of you realize. Do I think taking the “no guns allowed signs ” down would help? Yes. Do I think putting a different sign up would help? Yes. But the reality is, most of my co-workers do not think that way. In large districts like mine, that is going to be the case. And this conversation is only making them dig their heals in even more right now.

    Avatarfowl_attitude
    Participant
    Post count: 602
    Up
    0
    Down

    Teachers are required by state law to take a Mandatory Reporter of Abuse training (signs of child abuse), blood pathogens (for when kiddos get sick in your class), a restraint/ restriction or isolation (for disciplining children).

    required by our district: a copy right law course (so as to not misuse material in your class)

    Coaches are required by state law to take yearly concussion head trauma course. Head coaches are also required to watch a rules video at the start of their season every year for their sport.

    These courses are about a 45 minute video that you watch and print off a certificate of completion at the end. All of these are yearly except the Child abuse is a 5 year certificate.

    Plus we are required to take 5 credit hours of content to renew our licenses every 5 years.

    Avatarfowl_attitude
    Participant
    Post count: 602
    Up
    0
    Down

    Quote by: BrownItsDown

    Quote by: northwoodsbucks

    Its good that people are thinking, number 2 might even be practical.

    As already said, law would be state level, policy would be local districts.

    No 1 is a violation of Posse Comitatus and just plain bad policy. I disagree with the premise of armed guards but if you did is has to be law enforcement or private security, not military.

    No 3 would never work, lots of anti gun people in teachers unions and forcing them to train with a gun will be a no go. Allowing teachers to voluntarily participate may be viable although I dont know what it does to insurance. Voluntary would also likely be more effective or as least as effective as mandatory.

    I don’t believe No 1 is a violation of the Posse Comitatus Act, but that’s where attorneys would need to be involved.

    No 3, school faculty are government employees. They would really have no choice in the matter. Insurance should logically be in favor of qualified school faculty carrying firearms, in lieu of the school murders of the past 1-2 decades.

    In your first post, you said it would not be required. But here, as I read it, you say they would not have any choice. Sorry for misinterpreting your comment.

    As I have said several times. I appreciate this discussion. As a public school teacher, I appreciate it. As a parent, I appreciate it.

    Avatarfowl_attitude
    Participant
    Post count: 602
    Up
    0
    Down

    You can not mandate or require teachers take a firearm training and carry a firearm any more than you can any other job. You can just forget that requirement to be a teacher otherwise you will not have any teachers. We have a staff of about 120 and I am guessing there are less than 30 who would support having teachers carry a gun. I didn’t say carry themselves. I said support. There are probably only 5-8 that would be comfortable being armed while at work. And the reason has nothing to do with 2nd amendment support or fear of guns. It has to do with they don’t want to be in the military. They don’t want to be put in a position where they would have to shoot someone, possibly a student. Teachers will do everything they can to keep kids safe, but I don’t think you will find many willing to do this. Someone is going to say fine then quit and we will replace you with teachers that will carry. And that isn’t realistic. There aren’t enough teachers that would feel this way.You will be hiring people willing to carry, but can’t teach the subject. That makes sense. Kids are safe, but not learning anything. Making it an option will be tough. Making it a requirement is impossible.

    Refurbishing buildings is the best bet and that should be the focus. That could get done.

    Avatarfowl_attitude
    Participant
    Post count: 602
    Up
    0
    Down

    I appreciate everyone’s input. I know it seems like these school shootings are happening with a lot of frequency. But as I stated before children are more likely to be in an accident on the bus than in a school shooting….and buses don’t have seat belts and sometimes they barely have a qualified driver. That should tell you right there the value placed on safety. We have always gambled with the safety of our children.

    Avatarfowl_attitude
    Participant
    Post count: 602
    Up
    0
    Down

    I would say if you want it a law…state level.
    If you want it to be a policy. local school district level.

    Looking at your list, it is a good list. But Number 2 is a difficult one. The high school I teach in has 6 entraces. Only two are open for students in the morning and those are locked at 8:40. Anyone using those entrances after 8:40 buzzes the office and some one comes and lets them in. However that does not prevent students from using the other entrances. They prop the doors open with a pencil, if they see someone there they let them in. And you can not chain or block the door from being used from the inside, otherwise you upset the fire marshal. All of those exits are used during fire evacuations. And try giving a student a consequence for using one of these doors and watch what happens. It is difficult to secure a building with 6 sets of doors and 1400 students.

    We even tried making kids wear ID’s on lanyards so we could identify people that should not be in the building. It was a three year battle. Kids didn’t see the point and parents were not supportive. Everyone talks a good game until there is the slightest bit of inconvenience. Then it is “my kid shouldn’t have to…”

    Avatarfowl_attitude
    Participant
    Post count: 602
    Up
    0
    Down

    Quote by: llewellinsetter

    Hmm, lots of first posts about guns here lately. Certainly smells a bit phishy, although they seem to be getting better with their style of approach.

    My thoughts exactly. It’s crafted very well. Too well. The variables are so well defined. Almost like a script that has been used and refined. It’s unfortunate that we have to be skeptical…..but we do.

    Avatarfowl_attitude
    Participant
    Post count: 602
    in reply to: Game Birds? #1556338
    Up
    0
    Down

    Malloy Game Birds in State Center. I know he has a minimum for an order but i don’t know what that is.

    Avatarfowl_attitude
    Participant
    Post count: 602
    Up
    0
    Down

    Quote by: mhock

    Here in Boone, we were going to have a mock shooting. There was a letter sent out to the parents letting us know this was a possiblity. They were asking for volunteer students to be “actors” to play victims that would wear make up to make it realistic. This would be in conjunction with the local Police Dept and 1st responders. Never happened to the scale that was proposed because a few parents didn’t want their children to experience the trauma. Talk about missing the point of the exercise.

    As a teacher, I have been through one of these with blank rounds and everything. I am not sure how much I would want students to go through. It is pretty scary stuff hearing those rounds coming down the hallway as you sit in the corner of the room and I’m not sure we need to put students through that. During our training, they told us that statistically, your children are more likely to be in a bus accident than one of these tragedies. So I am not sure we need to go full out on this training and put undo fear and memories in kids.

    However, there does need to be conversations and escape plans discussed. We practice fire drills and tornado drills monthly. But we do nothing except practice “being quiet” in the place of a lock down. Students do need to know there are options and they have options. I do know that one other fear about doing these training with students is that you actually educate the bad guy. For example, we discussed having a common meeting place if we evacuated for a bomb threat. And we were told to never announce those in advance, as the bad guy could plan an attack at the meeting place. So we have 5 meeting places that only staff is aware of. Administration would tell us which one to use in the event something happens. But there does need to be “in the event of” conversations with students. I just don’t know we need flash bangs and blank rounds and bodies laying around.

    Avatarfowl_attitude
    Participant
    Post count: 602
    Up
    0
    Down

    Following the discussion here. There are a lot of good points. As a teacher I have been through a relatively new training called ALICE. It is completely different than what we have done for many, many years. For many years we were told to turn off the lights , lock you door and wait quietly. This does nothing but make you a sitting duck. We actually practiced this during the ALICE training with our sheriffs department. It is an unbelievably unnerving thing to hear the threat coming down the hallway and be told you are not to do anything. And yet, that is the policy for most schools. I always thought that was stupid since I have ground level windows. Why would I not take my students out to safety? With the new training, we are now given that option if we think it is the best option. We are also given the option to “fight back”. Use what ever you have to throw or distract. I teach science. I have all kinds of goodies that could be used. Research shows that in these cases shooters move to the easiest targets because they know their time is limited to inflict the damage. We are now told to do what we think is the best for our students. But this is not the training most teachers receive. Most are told to sit and wait. Someone mentioned making doors open inwards. Doors can be kicked in and you don’t have time to move desks or file cabinets in the way. Or the teacher may not be physically able to move something. The solution is a door closer lock. A simple tube that slides over the closer from inside the classroom so the door can not be opened from the outside, even if they have a key. I made some out of PVC, painted them red, and gave them to anyone that wanted one. School resource officers are already used in many larger schools. But with a large school, that means even their response time can be a minute as he gets from one end of the building to the other. What about utilizing teachers who have served in the military? I have 4 colleagues who served in the Afgan or Irag. If anyone is trained to deal with the pressure situation like this, it is them. My point, is there are some options out there.

    Avatarfowl_attitude
    Participant
    Post count: 602
    Up
    0
    Down

    The adapter for the screws is useful. I use tie down straps instead of the strings that come with it hub. The wide band and buckles are easier to adjust with gloves on than the skinny strings it comes with. I hang my coat on the back of the chair I am sitting on or I stick it between the poles and the tent like others stated.

    Avatarfowl_attitude
    Participant
    Post count: 602
    Up
    0
    Down

    As someone who used to ride snowmobiles, most people do follow the laws. There used to be (not sure if they exist still) clubs in many counties (especially NE Iowa). Those clubs would mark the trails and hazards. They would also get permission from land owners to run the trail across the farmer’s field. So many times when you see them running across a field, they might actually be following a marked trail. I used to ride from the Janesville area and we could ride all the way up to Waukon on trails. We could ride almost to Independence on trails. Again, these trails would be marked in ditches, through parks, and across private fields. But to be a marked trail, the club had to have permission from the landowner (does not include ditch).

    Avatarfowl_attitude
    Participant
    Post count: 602
    in reply to: Drones #1556846
    Up
    0
    Down

    Had a drone fly over us while duck hunting. Talk about annoying. We think it was just some kids out playing as we were not at a marsh and we could not see anyone around…but it was still annoying. I can only imagine how annoying that would be to be sitting in a tree stand and here that buzzing noise over head. If amazon can use them to deliver packages…I am sure people will find a way to use them for more than the intended use. Pandora’s box.

    Avatarfowl_attitude
    Participant
    Post count: 602
    Up
    0
    Down

    A heeler can work deer just like sheep or cattle. I have seen it happen first hand. My friends Dad used to have a blue heeler that would want to follow us through the woods when we were hunting. So we would always put him in the barn or the house. About 15 years ago, we were tracking a deer in the timber behind their house. Duke had gotten out of the house. We come over the hill, and Duke has a doe cornered in the cow pasture. She would go one direction and he would cut her off. She would go the other and he would cut her off. One direction was blocked by the house and barn. So she really wanted to go back towards the timber whichis where he was cutting her off from. Talk about a catch 22. Take the doe, and you are using a dog to hunt. Let her go and if she is the wounded one you just prolonged the suffering or take the chance of loosing her. We decided to call him over to us and let the doe go back into the timber. We took the dog back into the house while a couple of guys continued to track and and legally take her. My point is, it is not as simple as everyone thinks it is. I know it would be nice to recover game, but there are plenty of scenarios that could potentially get good people with good intentions in trouble. We weren’t even using the dog and felt like we could be breaking the law if we would have taken that doe. Do you use the dog to track and finish off a wounded deer? Is that considered hunting instead of recovering since it wasn’t dead? Maybe you jump a second deer and someone takes that instead thinking it was the wounded deer which means you just hunted with a dog instead of recovering a dead deer. I know most guys on here are good guys, but there are a lot of comments that over simplify what the law enforcement would have to deal with and make decisions on.

    Avatarfowl_attitude
    Participant
    Post count: 602
    in reply to: Ice out #1557322
    Up
    0
    Down

    Quote by: quailslayer

    After casting to find the depth the of fish one can count, figure out how many seconds to let the bait /jig fall when on the crappies. Many times once I figured out the count you just set the hook.

    This right here is great advice. They will typically be located at the same water depth based on water temp.

    I also like to use spikes or wax worms left over from ice fishing.

Viewing 20 posts - 1 through 20 (of 488 total)