Unlimited Cooperation- Subsistence Hunting Pt. 2

Author's Note- the persistence of good friend SBW resulted in this post, meant for completion a few days after "Pt.1" but I ran out of steam and never completed the piece to my satisfaction. I must apologise as I feel I've left some folks hanging in the breeze on a topic several people have shown tremendous interest in. I don't know that the piece will ever meet my expectations but I'll roll it out there anyway. The interest in subsistence hunting (and my blog) is very gratifying and my apologies for not rolling this out there sooner.

One of the things I've noticed as I experience hunting in and among various cultures, is that every culture approaches hunting in different ways, for different reasons and with different tactics. Before I moved to Alaska, I hunted small game and deer as well as fished in the rural Southeastern United States. The people there I hunted with often looked at hunting as a "sport" and were endlessly looking for that "big buck" or "big bass" and while many folks ate the game and fish they caught (shamefully some didn't), not many actually relied on them as a significant food source. For a lot of my acquaintances I could honestly say their primary motivation in their hunting and fishing activities was competition with other hunters. The fish and game laws and population densities were such that a person would have an extremely hard time subsisting on game alone and those did relish the taste of game meat often considered it the rare treat...more of an hors d'oeurve than anything thing else.

When I moved to Alaska I was exposed to subsistence hunting cultures for the first time, but with a catch. I lived initially in Anchorage- which is a large and metropolitan city by any modern standard. Those participants of subsistence hunting culture that I encountered were out of their element as much as I was out of mine as a newcomer to the North. In my time there I did encounter several people who had lived a subsistence lifestyle at a point in the past- a mixture of Alaska Natives and Bush dwelling Caucasians- who for whatever reason were now living a metropolitan existence. I did know a few folks who lived a partial subsistence lifestyle that mainly consisted of fish on the subsistence end and the occasional sport-hunted big game animal on the game end. In groups of people where several hunters were gathered and talking about hunting, I noticed that those with considerable subsistence hunting roots often fell silent or wandered away from the conversation. I wouldn't know the reason why until I myself moved farther into Alaska and travelled to areas where true subsistence hunting was the primary mode of people feeding themselves.

When I did travel to a remote village for the first time, I was quite unprepared for what I experienced there. Game taken on a scale that defied imagination- literally racks of caribou hanging everywhere in the village, fish hauled out from under the river ice in long nets and stacked like cord wood. Within moments of the harvest, the animal was processed and the shooter essentially couldn't pick the portions of "his" animal from among the many dozens already processed...and surprisingly to me, didn't seem to care. I was curious about this and finally realized that for these people, killing an animal was the equivalent of heading to the grocery store and that the family groups shared the catch first among themselves  and then shared it with the wider community. I was also surprised that none of the men hunted alone, but rather in small groups of four or five (usually related some way) and that when meeting other groups (or crews as they referred to them), intel about animal movements and locations was shared freely. That was really a surprise coming from an culture where my Caucasian hunting friends prattled on about "secret spots" and went to great lengths to keep locations and information from other hunters. I decided that this merited some more thought.

Within a few years, I moved farther out into Alaska and now reside in what one might call a "partial Bush community" in that we are attached to the road system but resources in the community are somewhat limited and many of the residents practice a true subsistence lifestyle and many (like myself) have a partial subsistence lifestyle. I've also noticed that the attitudes about hunting have changed as well. True, we still have people who hunt competitively for sport but they are really an unusual fixture here. Most of the hunting and fishing activities if not totally communal in nature like a Native village are at least partially so. For instance, during dipnetting season once the salmon catch arrives in town, gifts of fresh red salmon are freely shared among friends, relatives and those not able to go for themselves. In fact, for many species and animals, Alaska laws allow for a proxy hunter- wherein another hunter can take the tags and bag limits for someone who may be disabled or elderly and fill them for them.

When big game hunting in parties, the party generally sets a number of animals it can handle in whatever location it's in and it may be less than the number of hunters afield. Although everyone who intends to potentially shoot will have a legal tag to avoid "party hunting" regulations, not everyone will get a shot. Once an animal is harvested, then all members stop hunting and process the downed animal. In a party of four hunters a couple of moose will represent everything that can be rationally harvested from the field. While the shooter will almost invariably lay claim to the antlers or other trophy item- everyone in the party will expect a portion of meat for their participation. To fail to offer a hunting partner a share of your catch is not frequently seen as an insult among Anchorage residents, in the Bush it is considered exceptionally rude and disrespectful and in Native villages the shooter is seen as having no right to exclusivity whatsoever. Break those rules and you're often hunting alone before long.

After thinking about the vastly differing perspectives on hunting I've come to the following conclusions, which I readily admit could be entirely wrong. Many Native hunters will not speak at any length about hunting due to certain cultural superstitions and beliefs- ie. brag about killing a big caribou and next week you may not even see one. So the urban sport hunter is frequently seen as selfish, wasteful and insulting to God and Nature to boot. Those Native hunters and Bush subsistence hunters I've spoken with when compared to the urban sport hunters I've had long relationships with differ in this primary way- the sport hunter often sees the catch as the result of his exclusive labor, skill, aptitude and even luck. Among subsistence hunters the harvest is often seen as the collaborative result of many people, skills, even the animals themselves, the environment and the forces of God and Nature. While I'm not prepared to call either viewpoint incorrect, every time I view a televised hunter shooting a big deer over a corn feeder on a large hunting ranch and then being congratulated on his extrordinary skills...I can't help but think of those racks of meat on the Arctic coast being exclusively eaten by people who are pretty darn humble about it.

Redneck Camping

I seldom pass along this sort of thing...but I found these guys well worth pushing down the trail.

Killing Bears...My Thoughts on the Tom Smith Study.

I've been at this blogging business for a good long time and an avid outdoorsman for most of my life with not inconsiderable experience in what you could call "bear country". I get a small but steady stream of email from readers with some variation of the question,"What gun do you use for bear defense?" I've not written much about bear defense, on purpose, because the genre is so over done and frankly the woods are full of people already scared witless of bears. More stories of bear encounters and DLP shootings won't do much good for those folks and my meager efforts to confront the endless stream of paranoia in the press is tantamount to useless.

It was with great interest that I read the Tom Smith study of bear attacks and his analysis of bear deterrents and firearms. The study is interesting and usually found under the headline similar to the one found here. It is worth noting that the summarized version of the article doesn't do the actual study due diligence so finding a copy of the published study is well worth the effort. I was somewhat surprised by the outcome of the study that basically showed firearms no more effective at stopping an attack than doing nothing and terribly surprised that weapon type had no statistical difference. What? Can't be. I've never been attacked by a bear but I have shot more than my fair share of critters and know more than a little about firearms performance in the field. To basically find no difference in effectiveness between handguns and long guns boggles the imagination and to find no difference in outcome between firearms and nothing but hope defies logic.

At the outset, let me say that I do agree with Mr. Smith on several points- primarily that clods roaming the woods with guns are no more safe than clods anywhere else and effective use of a gun during a bear attack is a dicey prospect at best. But, looking at the data I became pretty convinced that there are a lot of bear killings out there that Mr. Smith didn't include in his data set that would have skewed the numbers substantially. Enough so that I consider his results inconclusive at best.

For instance- of the people I know who've been involved with aggressive bears, two were reported as DLP (Defense of Life and Property) shootings. two more made no claim to the killing of a bear but I speculate they both killed a bear anyway and failed to report it. Four more had encounters with aggressive (or at least nuisance) bears during hunting activities and chose to harvest the bear and legally tag it. So out of six confirmed (and likely eight or more) aggressive bears killed, only two would show up on Mr. Smith's survey. That would certainly skew the numbers. Of the reported DLP bears, one was killed with a handgun and the other with a shotgun- so it would appear just considering those events there is no statistical difference between a long gun and a handgun when it comes to knocking off an attacking grizzly.

When you consider the four bears killed during hunting activities were all killed with rifles that would certainly skew the data heavily toward rifles being more effective but those events are labeled as normal hunting harvests, not attacks even though one event had the bear charging a successful sheep hunter as he skinned his sheep. Of course, unreported DLP kills are innumerable since they are concealed but it happens more frequently than one would think. Registering a DLP bear is a long process and the shooter loses the hide and claws to the State and is frequently (and sometimes justifiably) questioned at length about the nature of the incident. Neither of the DLP shooters I've spoke with would endure the process again and would rather take their chances just leaving the carcass lay. Not that I agree with that course of action, but compliance with the law on a DLP bear is onerous enough that many folks would simply "shoot, shovel and shut up" or tag the bear legally if they're allowed.

The data goes back a long time and previous generations didn't give bears as much credence or value as we do today. For a lot of Alaska's territorial past, bears were simply a dangerous nuisance and frequently just gunned down without fanfare, report or paperwork. Finding unsuccessful defenses in years gone by would be problematic as well, since a lone person mauled and killed in the wilderness may never be reported or found by anyone. One must assume that at least a few of the numerous adventurers from days long past who simply vanished, did so as the outcome of a bear attack. As a result, I don't think Mr. Smith counted nearly all the aggressive bears killed in the State.

So what is the intrepid woods romper to do? With all of the data pouring forth that declares carrying a firearms is a worse course of action than carrying a sharp stick and that bear spray is better than both. How does someone decide what is prudent and what is ridiculous? Suffice to say that during an assault by a large carnivore is not the appropriate time to be deciding on a course of action. As a caveat, let me state outright that I'm going to describe how I make these decisions and they may or may not be appropriate for you in any particular situation. I've had several bear encounters- all resolved without incident and all but one was considered a rare treat. But the thing to remember is that bears are large, intelligent predators and they are all individuals. What causes one to flee over the far ridge may provoke curiosity in another and may send yet another into a determined attack. The best we can do is discuss generalities and concepts- the individual bear being the unknown and determining factor.

Empty handed- I know several exceptionally savvy outdoorsmen that carry nothing in the woods except common sense. I will occasionally pursue this course of action when out in bear country. Notice the category is called "empty handed" not "empty headed". Many people travel in the wilds without a weapon at all and depend on good sense and back country knowledge to keep them out of unpleasant encounters. While it sounds out of character for me, I think those skills should be foremost in your plan whether you carry a weapon or not. Staying out of an encounter with a bear is absolutely the best case for surviving one. A weapon or deterrent is no replacement for horse sense and too many people allow a weapon to give them a false sense of bravado and security that simply doesn't exist. I'll also point out that the late Timothy Treadwell never carried a weapon and safely conducted himself foolishly close to hundreds of bears over several years until the specific, unpredictable bear entered the area. That bear is the one we all worry about.

Bear Spray- Although among firearms enthusiasts the concept of bear spray gets a bad rap, it is effective enough that I feel it warrants a place in our arsenal of tactics. Basically, for those who don't know, it is a very hot formulation of capsicum spray that is used by riot police and other personal protection products. When one considers how sensitive a bears nasal tissues are, it is pretty effective at deterring bears and within most statistical surveys comes out ahead of firearms. We've already discussed the problems with the survey but the product is a sound concept. I believe it is marvelously effective at deterring curious bears- those that enter a camp or come into contact with humans in a nuisance but non aggressive way. It is a way of convincing a nuisance bear to move on out of the area without any bloodshed.

There are several drawbacks to spray however. First is that it has a proven record of deterring bears but I'm not convinced it will stop a determined attack in progress. An adrenalized bear can withstand enormous pain and can sustain unbelievable damage and press on in it's actions. Second, the spray can be as disabling to the user as it can to the bear. I had the unpleasant experience during a training class of getting a small amount of backspray from a live canister and I would have been at a real disadvantage had a bear been in proximity. Third, and perhaps most important, is that spray doesn't leave you any sort of lethal option should it be required. A biologist crew came into contact with an aggressive bear in Denali Park a couple years ago, they sprayed the same bear twice in two incidents and upon it's third return they just shot it. Capsicum is a powerful deterrent, but what do you do if it doesn't deter?

I will utilize spray as a first option in situations where carrying a firearm is not appropriate, or to give to folks who may not be comfortable or capable with a firearm. For the out-of-state visiting, angler it is often the best choice since the logistics of buying and disposing of bear spray is a simple transaction conducted in-state and the chance of bear encounters is pretty remote.

Handguns- This is an item that I genuinely feel has limited usefulness to the backcountry traveller with regard to bears. I know that I diverge from a significant number of outdoorsfolks on this matter, but I didn't arrive at my opinion by accident. First, before someone accuses me of incompetence, I do have a substantial background with handguns and have been proficient enough in days gone by to be a state and national level competitor so I can speak with a voice of experience. And that is the rub. I've shot handguns under pressure enough and seen many hundreds of others shooting under pressure to agree with Tom Smith on this topic. Most people simply don't shoot a handgun proficiently enough under duress to depend on it in the face of a bear attack.

There is also the matter of ballistics. While I don't disagree with others that powerful handguns have enough oomph to kill a bear and it's been done enough in the past to prove it's not impossible; they certainly don't have anywhere near the power of even mild center fire rifle cartridges. Compare the ballistics of a .44 Remington Magnum to the "anemic" .30-30 Winchester and you'll see what I mean. I've also fired the newer class of high power revolver cartridges like the .500 Smith and Wesson and .454 Casull; they are a significant step up in power from the .44 Magnum but I've found them extremely difficult to shoot at any sort of range in a handgun of moderate weight. If it comes to packing a heavy revolver or a light rifle- I'll simply take the rifle. I do however think that a revolver makes a good second tier behind bear spray to give someone a lethal option where a long gun isn't appropriate but I seriously doubt the handguns ability to successfully stop aggressive bears.

Shotguns- One frequently sees shotguns touted as effective bear defense and I happen to agree with a couple caveats. First, shotguns are powerful but generally limited in range. DLP shooting for bears is a very short range affair so that's not a real handicap. Where a 3" 12 gauge stoked with buckshot at point blank range is devastatingly impressive, at 30-40 yards it may not even significantly wound a bear. That could leave you a bigger problem than you started with. Shotgun effectiveness is so ammunition dependent, you have to be aware of what you select to feed your scattergun.

The other caveat is about the design of shotguns themselves. One frequently sees a short barreled, pump shotgun recommended with some frequency for bear defense and I'm OK with that to a degree given the handiness factor but you also see a pistol grip suggested as well...I'm not so happy with that. Pistol gripped shotguns with short barrels are extremely handy but exceedingly difficult to shoot well. The beauty of a well made shotgun is the speed at which they can be accurately fired from the shoulder and the same speed that makes them effective against flushing grouse would be well used on a charging bear. I just don't think a standard length barrel and a stock makes a piece too unwieldy in the wilds. Turning a shotgun into an over sized and unwieldy pistol just doesn't seem like a great idea aside from portability.

In the same vein I view slugs much the same way- while a slug is much preferred over buckshot in hunting large game for purposes of extending range I just don't see an advantage of choosing a slug loaded shotgun over a proper rifle when it comes to defensively killing a bear. Shotgun slugs also tend to be very soft and while they may punch through a deer, flattening and failing to fully penetrate something the size of a bear is possible. In the post mortem of the Treadwell bear, it's been reported a Trooper's slug was stopped by the upper jaw below the eye socket and failed to penetrate the cerebral cavity. Choosing a hard slug like the Brenneke is quite important. Turning a shotgun into a short range rifle just seems out of place as compared to actually just carrying a rifle unless one is doing some activity that requires a shotgun anyway. Two duck hunters this past fall had a run in with a grizzly and managed to kill it with a dozen rounds of heavy steel waterfowl loads. After corresponding with one of the hunters, he reports a couple of heavy buckshot rounds will find its way into his pockets on future trips.

The Rifle- I'll divulge my bias from the outset. I am a rifleman and my field preference will almost invariably resort to rifles when something absolutely has to die in the most expedient way possible. I firmly believe the high powered rifle is responsible for killing more aggressive bears than anything else as we discussed earlier. When I'm big game hunting I generally carry a light rifle in the .300 magnum class and while many may say that it's not ideal for hunting bears, I'm comfortable with it for defensive purposes when loaded with good bullets that won't explode on impact. Examples are the Nosler Partition and the much vaunted Barnes TSX that will withstand high speed impact and continue to penetrate deeply through large animals. I usually have a few of these in my kit that I'll load into the magazine after I've killed an animal and start the packing process. The .338 Winchester Magnum was introduced to the world in the Model 70 'Alaskan' and widely advertised as the ideal all-around rifle for the bear country hunter. For bear hunting I believe that a wide number of cartridges are perfectly suitable but there is a big difference in shooting an undisturbed bear from distance and trying to stop an angry one at close range.

I frequently carry a heavier rifle when I'm not hunting the alpine or when I'm simply hiking and won't need to make longer shots. I've got to report that a rifle in the .375 class is extremely comforting when you encounter fresh grizzly tracks. For defensive purposes an open sighted carbine is about ideal. My sample is one of the popular Ruger Alaskans firing the .375 Ruger cartridge. The ballistics of such cartridges have a very long history of effectively stopping large game at close range and in the words of one writer, "It's doesn't just kill them...it numbs them."  When one surveys the Alaska guides that hunt bears, the various .375s, the .416s, .458s and such are pretty standard fare. One legendary Kodiak guide even carried a double .500 Nitro! While that may be required for folks who vocationally deal with wounded bears at rock throwing distances it should say something of it's requirements and gives the savvy outdoorsmen a place to start.

The Alaskan and many similar competing rifles are suitable for the task right out of the box. While many hunters choosing it to hunt with will add a scope, for defensive use they come with good express sights as standard equipment and I was effective with mine to around 100 yards. Far enough for most moose hunting and much further than a defensive shooting could be justified. I've added one of the excellent NECG aperture sights to my rifle- it gives me somewhat longer range for hunting use and no detriment to speed for a defensive shot at close range. Aperture sighted rifles used to be the backbone of the hunter's arsenal and while its almost universally a scope sighted world today- the aperture rifle has much to recommend it.

So there are some thoughts about hunting and travelling in bear country and while I disagree with the study's data and some of it's conclusion, there are some points Mr. Smith makes that I think  are very valid. First, if you're going to travel in bear country, what fills your head is vastly more important than what fills your hands. Second, even though non-lethal options are effective don't discount the need for a lethal means of stopping a bear attack. Third, if you do choose a lethal means then equipment and proficiency matter greatly so carefully selecting your equipment and then developing the required proficiency is vital to your survival. So at this point I've written more than I have in the entire history of my blog combined about bear attack and defending yourself in one but I'd like to leave the reader with a final thought. Reading about bear attacks and thinking about those situations and imaging yourself in one are appealing to the Walter Mitty in all of us, but it is really quite rare to have encounters with aggressive bears.

While not as dramatic, it is the more mundane things like drowning, falling and hypothermia that really wait out there in the Bush ready to kill us at every opportunity. Prepare accordingly and stay safe.

Ski Day- on Thick Ice.

During our recent bout of warmish weather, the family decided that they'd had enough of the indoors. We took the whole gang out for a ski on a large, local lake. The windblown surface of the lake provided an ideal surface for a recreational ski- flat, hard, obstruction less...perfect.

Given that so many of our family live in locales where the local bodies of water don't freeze solid  for months on end, we get many questions about the safety of the ice thickness.

Well.

Given that the average temperature has been below 0F for months at this point the ice is pretty thick. A quick check with a local ice fisherman showed it was only about 5 feet thick.

How strong is 5' of lake ice? In tests a few years back- enough to land a loaded 747 on. The skiing family should present no issues...

What about those cracks? The savvy winter traveller would look at this photo and be well comfortable with these deep fractures. As the ice thickens and temperature variations cause expansion and contraction these long cracks form in the ice. Bottom line- only substantially thick ice, formed over months will have enough rigidity to form these cracks.

Early season ice would be clear as a lens...and about as fragile. The seasoned winter traveller would avoid it at all cost.

Chinook!

      Sorry for the dearth of posting lately- winter is in full force here and I've been quite busy with work projects, taking a couple of classes and teaching a couple of classes as well. Winter has been a little easier without hours of idle time to contemplate on things but my blogging has suffered.

       About a week ago, a relentless high pressure system moved into the Interior region and the millibar chart went off the charts. One thing happens here during such high pressures- the atmosphere thins and all the latent heat radiates directly into outer space. On those cold nights, a well dressed North dweller can go outside and stare heavenward and seemingly look all the way into Creation. Most folks who live in the Lower 48- places with pollution, light wash, and mere thick atmosphere have no idea what kind of view can be had over their heads when the contents of the atmosphere peel back.

       The downside of this startling and miraculous view is cold....bone chilling, dangerous, life threatening cold. During this particular episode, the official temperature for my small town hit -50F and many folks in the low lying river bottoms hit -60F. At those temperatures, exposed flesh freezes in seconds and machinery often just fails for little apparent reason. Travel is not recommended and survival gear is a must when one does. The other upside is such cold primes the body's mechanisms and after a stint at -40F or below; temperatures of 0F feel downright balmy.

        The extreme high pressure system also did something else- as it moved off to the east and our Canadian friends it left a vacuum that the next low pressure system rushed to fill. Those low pressure systems carry lots of moisture from the Gulf of Alaska and warmer air masses from the Pacific. In coastal Alaska, those systems dump mountains of snow when they contact  the coastal mountains with the cold Arctic air masses spilling over; but when they build enough force to cross into the Interior regions they create what is known as a Chinook.

      The Chinooks here pack unbelievably warm temperatures and gale force winds and its not unusual for these winds to hit, raise temperatures dramatically and then vanish as quickly as they came. The chart below shows just how quickly it happens- on January 28 and 29 the temperature was -50F (often -60F in low spots) and by the evening of February 2nd the winds were in excess of 60mph and the weather had warmed to 40F! 100 degrees Fahrenheit delta in 100 hours. In the early morning hours of the 3rd the winds vanish and the temperatures plummet to below 0 again. Returning the North to its frozen state.

       The brief respite was welcome from such a cold January and it was nice to go outside in a light shirt and not feel immediate pain and worry about losing appendages. Just a couple more months until winter's grip is broken we return to warmer weather and more adventures.

Chart sourced from Weather Underground

Tactics... Travel Light and Fast

I was reading one of Steve Rinnela's Meateater posts the other day where he was talking about the method he used to harvest a great Coues Deer in Arizona and he introduced me to a new term for an old method of hunting. I've not seen the show (hard to do without cable or satellite) but I'm well acquainted with the method. The term he learned and used was "cold camp" although I've heard "spike camp", "coyote camp" and the technique called "search and destroy", "dash and crash" and a couple others but none seems universally used. I guess its more of a loose philosophy than a well defined technique.

Some honesty here- I work for a living and while I dream of 10 day wilderness trips, Super Cub drops and descending some long unknown drainage in expedition rafts; the overwhelming majority of my hunts are much shorter affairs conducted much closer to home. The tactic I normally use isn't the one most of us think so much about; hiking or moving in a heavy base camp and then journeying from there into more remote areas looking for game. It works and you read about it in most of the journals and hear stories about the epic trips- but among locals it isn't very common. For one, it takes a lot of planning and quite a lot of resources (read: money) and not an inconsiderable amount of time. For the working man, its hard to pull off consistently.

I like to travel light, taking a minimum of equipment and move quickly into an area likely to contain animals and try to maximize my hunting time at the expense of comfort. If I only have a weekend to hunt, I'm not going to waste a day moving in 50, 60 or more pounds of equipment. I'd spend the entire hunt ferrying it in and out. Instead, I'll take enough equipment for a rough overnighter. Maybe a bivy, or poncho and move quickly into position to glass and spend all of the time I've got hunting, glassing and then moving quietly up a drainage looking to score on an animal. If I have to spend a night out it will not be comfortable and the lack of equipment leaves me at the mercy of the elements which could lead to a cancelled hunt should weather deteriorate. As a local hunter, I take great solace in getting weathered out means I just get to go back out the next weekend.

What about night? During our early season in the high Arctic, the hunting occurs in August- long hours of daylight and only brief periods of darkness too dark to hunt. At most we have just three or fours hours of gloomy dark huddled up trying to get some sleep knowing that if the next day turns warm you can sleep in the afternoon's warm sun when the animals are all bedded in the high country not stirring. I've heard from many hunters who hunt hard from breakfast (8:00a) until supper (6:00p) and never see any animals- they've missed the two most important times. The early dawn movements occur between 4:00 and 5:00a that time of year and the evening period often as late as 10:00 or 11:00p- the hunter keeping banker's hours will be ignoring the most important times of the day. For the chilled and sleep deprived hunter, those long hours of warm sun and minimal movement are great times to make a little food and curl up in the sun for a nap.

When practicing this tactic it pays to be in "hunt mode" all the time- minimal talking, minimal fires and movements along protected routes. I believe too many hunters today don't realize the signature they make on the environment and just how far scent or noise carries. I don't believe animals are as scent adverse or even noise adverse as we make them out; but a group of people moving loudly and haphazardly across the environment will affect their movements. The thinking hunter should be minimizing their signature on the environment by maintaining silence and above all else- moving slowly and methodically looking all the while. Thinking like a predator moving in stealth mode could be the difference between scoring and going home with an empty pack.

Merry Christmas...

The presents are open, the dessert enjoyed, the roast beast sliced and served.

Friends came and went and back again with gifts and fellowship and tidings of joy.

Phone calls and messages to and from distant family- goodwill over long distance.

Dishes done and put away, wrapping papers picked up, little boy tucked into his bed.

Now just enjoying some quiet time.

Peace on earth....peace in me.

Merry Christmas.