NY Bowhunter

What do you think they were going to say? I'm sure anything that comes from the states mouth is going to sugar coat the issue.

BuckAlley

You hardly know me Phade! NY Outdoors is new, I've only read a couple issues. So I haven't really formed an opinion yet. But I've certainly read worse. Far as my comments on the CWD article its information written to the public. This whole deal is so new to us, and so many are totally uneducated on it. Including myself. So we can only hope that such articles are factual. Not all of us has the involvement Mr. Yox's does, and I'm greatful he provides us with what he does know. His latest post also brings to light the fact that many articles written of late may not be factual. So now I guess I don't know what to think. Just consider me confused!!! [8D]

Phade

I think it is pretty good. Information is fairly current news-wise. Sure beats out what was there before-hand.

I'll guarantee you 100% that the articles in there are factual (minus editorial)...they have to be... Remember that "factual" changes as developments occur. Shifting statements from sources (dec, etc.) can appear to make an article look like it was not factual. At the time of print, it was.

Especially in such a situation, it will occur.

Let me know how you like NY Outdoor News when you make up your mind. I am real curious to hear your view of it, especially with our debates...

BuckAlley

Actually Phade I thought you were being sarcastic when asked if I like NY Outdoor News. To be honest I'm considering subscribing to it for a yr, to try it out. For 1 I stopped several of my other Hunting mag subscriptions, because I got tired of reading the same thing over and over. So want to try something new, and be nice to help keep up on NY news. When I decide how I like I'll let ya know.

Bill Yox

Phade and buckalley...I dont want you guys to think Im saying ALL info out there is flawed, or that I have the inside line. What I AM saying is, theres too many articles that ARE way off. I know, I read them all. I have done the interviews both in-person and via phone in the last few months. For example, they said they were SURE that farms infected the wild deer, then taxidermist waste did it, etc. Yet that same reasoning THEY used to "determine" this also supports the theory that the wild deer infected the captive deer through the rehab program. Now thats an example of how they didnt use FACTS but printed OPINION. They also wrote that John raised the deer inside his shop with deer entrails coming in contact with the fawns. NOT TRUE, not even close. If I went back to some of the articles I could cite so many other glaring inaccuracies. I spot them right away, because they invariably hurt me and both of the industries I make my living from.

Lastly, before anyone feels Im just "sticking up" for what I do, if you know me personally youll know Im brutally honest and to the point. If something stinks, Im not afraid to call it sh*t...Ive had more than one writer, journalist , etc, that read me some "facts" to which I corrected, to my knowledge. Of course, I too ran with some inaccurate info at first. Its out there!

Phade

Try it, you'll like it. I am biased though.