Friday, October 10, 2014

This Week’s Adirondack Web Highlights

On Friday afternoons Adirondack Almanack compiles for our readers the best web highlights. You can find all our weekly web round-ups here.

Subscribe! More than 14,500 people follow Adirondack Almanack via RSS, E-Mail, or Twitter or Facebook updates. It’s a convenient way to get the latest news and information about the Adirondacks.

Related Stories

Community news stories come from press releases and other notices from organizations, businesses, state agencies and other groups. Submit your contributions to Almanack Editor Melissa Hart at

7 Responses

  1. Nate says:

    I normally browse through the links, but was a bit put off that the editors highlighted the “Slaughtered Deer” link. The link directs to a blog openly criticizing the exhibit, which is a find opinion in and of itself. However, other blog posts written by the author openly enjoy the deaths of hunters and propose not treating people who are injured in the process of hunting in order to save wildlife.

    This is offensive. I respect people opinions who do not support hunting. However, I cannot respect the choice of AdkAlmanac to link to a website opening enjoying the injury and death of people you don’t agree with.

    Highly disappointed,


    • John Warren says:

      Let me see if I got this right. You don’t want us to link to a post if you find some other post by the same author offensive – is that correct?

      • Nate says:


        The author of the blog you link to openly advocates for and enjoys when those he disagrees with are injured or killed. Of course, as editor you can choose to post what you like. I just find it in extremely bad taste to post a link to a blog that, four lines after the end of the Syracuse art article, discusses the joys of a hunting accident:

        ““You’ve got to be able to recognize that thanks to this incident the drooling class is down a member,” I said. “And any way you measure that the result is positive.”

        “It’s just so hard to celebrate when I know the slaughter continues,” he said.

        “What would have made the incident in Utah worth celebrating?” I asked.

        “I’d be a pretty satisfied dude had the two brothers gunned each other down,” Monty said, “or had the shooter decided he couldn’t live with what he’d done and offed himself right then and there.””

        Maybe even more disturbing, the author then encourages the writer to get the surviving hunter to commit suicide:

        “We can hope that the surviving brother catches a bullet himself, the next time he sets out to murder animals,” I reasoned.

        “Do you know the odds of that happening?” he snapped.

        I was pretty sure he had those numbers at his disposal. Still, undaunted, I pressed on.

        “We can hope that the surviving brother takes his own life,” I said. “That’s certainly within the realm of possibility. And there’s nothing stopping you from encouraging him. That would be a super-constructive exercise, don’t you think?””

        Or the first line of the next article, titled “Hunter Falls to His Death; Oh How I Wish He Had Been Pushed”:

        “If a hunter falls off the side of a mountain, does anybody hear him scream on the way down? It’s certainly a sound that would be music to my ears.”

        If you are looking for an extremely quick way to turn a natural advocate of Adirondack preservation, you have found it. As I said before, I am highly disappointed. It would be very nice if you would take the link down and link directly to the SU site or at least a reasonable critique of the exhibit.

        Still highly disappointed,


        • Nate says:


          The last paragraph should read

          “If you are looking for an extremely quick way to alienate the men and women that enjoy hunting, natural advocates of Adirondack preservation, you have found it.”

        • John Warren says:


          We didn’t write the comment you are referring to – we didn’t even link to the comments you are referring to. I select the links – in this case, a link that was entirely different from the comments and posts you are quoting – based on whether they are compelling or not, not based on whether I agree with them or not, or want to promote the ideas of the author. Sometimes I post links that I disagree with in order to expose them to a wider audience. That was some of the intent here.

          What you’re asking is that I review all the comments and other posts of the authors of pages I link to to meet your standards. That’s not only impossible, it’s also unethical.

          Should we run everything by you first as the arbiter of what is “extremely bad taste” before we link to it? Or do you just want to let us know when we should take down a link you find offensive? How exactly should it work?

          I appreciate that you’re offended by what you saw – GOOD, now go over there and comment, or shed light on it in your own way, but your disappointment in me is misplaced – it should be directed to the person you disagree with, not the person who pointed out to you the person you disagree with.

          And besides, lighten up and don’t be so easily offended. I found the link on a right-wing pro hunting website. It’s also rather ironic that you’re publishing in your comments the opinions that you are offended by. Looks like you’re the actual publisher of abhorrent ideas, doesn’t it?


          • Nate says:


            As I said before, as the editor you are entitled to run any story you want. I apologize if it seems like my intent is to ask that you run stories by me or exhaustively review the content of the links you post.

            On the other hand, by linking to news and websites you are doing several things. As you say, you are exposing these ideas to a broader…your…audience. And implicitly, you are providing legitimacy to these articles. I appreciate the need for broad news ad to have sometimes difficult conversations. Thus I can see how posting controversial material could have a benefit when it stirs conversation.

            But this idea has limits. Lets assume for a second you subscribe to the theory that your linking to their article provides some degree of implicit legitimacy (I of course have no idea if you do or not). Lending legitimacy to hateful authors that clearly have no interest in broader conversations with wider audiences has the unintended consequence of spreading this hateful commentary.

            In my opinion, which you at the Almanac have no burden to consider, is that the plainly hateful message of this author fails the “spreading ideas to a wider audience” test.

            You are probably right that I should take this a little more lightly but I am a passionate hunter myself, as you likely guessed. I try to have these conversations because I think its important for hunters to have a voice in these conversations. Just as you brought the link to a broader audience, I am trying to bring my views as a hunter to a broader audience.


            • John Warren says:


              I’m afraid we disagree on the central point. I think linking this was an opportunity for folks to enter a dialogue about it. Now you’ve had that dialogue here.

              I’ve always edited the Almanack with respect for traditional sports and have tried to treat the subject with fairness and the intelligence hunters and anglers deserve (having long been one).

              I want “environmentalists” and “sportsmen” to realize they have much in common. That means coming at it from all the angles, and I think the decision to link to this was the right one.

              Thanks for caring enough to comment.

RSS Latest News Headlines

  • An error has occurred, which probably means the feed is down. Try again later.

RSS Latest News Headlines

  • An error has occurred, which probably means the feed is down. Try again later.

Wait! Before you go:

Catch up on all your Adirondack
news, delivered weekly to your inbox