G.mech

So you got a merc pro-kicker or something then? If you can't reach the tilt button on the side of the motor you can either buy a remote tilt button at Bass Pro or somewhere (I think they are about 60 bucks) and wire it yourself or you can buy a kit from Merc (assuming that's what you got) for about $120 that has a little remote button and harness assembly to make the tie ins all neat and tidy. I have the part number and diagrams for it somewhere if you need them.

The panther trim & tilt kit you mentioned comes with it's own up/down control buttons as far as I can tell...

A lot of people have fished for a lot of years on Nipissing and never tied into a fish that size! I (actually my 10 year old son) had one close about 10 years ago but it pales beside yours. Great fishing!

I found this old post from Henry Nguyen from Legend boats: I was also researching the Brunswick Corp deal with Merc a bit and according to what I found it went down like this. Brunswick previously owned Mercury and then started buying up the Lund, Princecraft, Crestliner brands. Yamaha decided that they would not sell motors to these boat builders any more since they were basically 'competition'. Evinrude then followed Yamaha's lead and cut off these factories from buying their engines. As such, you can not buy any of these brands from the factory with these engines. Aftermarket customizing is possible if you can find the right dealer.

One other thing to look at between the aluminum walkthroughs is the windshield location. Some have a much larger foredeck and smaller cockpit than others and one may suit your needs better than the other. There is a huge difference between many of the brands once you get looking at them. As far as glass vs aluminum, they are different animals in almost every way including the price tags. I don't think the OP is in the market for a new Ranger just now but dreaming is always free!

Lund, Lowe, Crestliner, & Princecraft are all owned by the Brunswick Corporation who also owns Mercury. I don't think it's impossible but ordering any of these brands with anything other than Merc power is very, very difficult. That said, I have had two Princecrafts both with with Mercs (one 115 Opti and one 150 4 stroke) and have had zero issues with either of them but would probably have bought different engines had I had the choice at the time. Point is, you don't really have 100% flexibility when mixing and matching brands of boats and motors unless you want to do some customizing especially with controls & wiring harnesses.

Lake Simcoe has 100 possession for perch a few years, Lake Erie just started this in 2015 I believe....these are usually listed in the exceptions for each zone so may require some digging. In this case it is on Page 81 for Zone 16:

Oh sorry your are absolutely right on that account they need to be easily identifiable and countable until they are being prepared for consumption. When you said 'identified' I was thinking you meant with the anglers name and stuff but that was an earlier discussion...

2 things: 1) The labeling of the fish isn't really covered in black and white anywhere that I can find but based on my interactions with the OMNR&F I don't think it would be necessary in this scenario (i.e a recipient transporting no more than their limit of fish). Where it comes in from my experience is this. The MNR has suggested that if you are transporting your limit of fish as well as another fisherman's who isn't with you that it would be a very good idea if they were all be labelled since you are in fact in possession of more than your limit. Even labelled, you are still not 100% in the clear and could still be in trouble if you can't convince a CO that the other person(s) was in fact fishing with you and is travelling separately. It's kind of like the fact that you need to make sure you can prove that you did in fact fish for two days in areas where you are allowed a double possession limit (100 perch possession limit on Lake Simcoe for example). Sadly, this would be a discretionary thing that most of us here don't really like since we all prefer black/white, yes/no sort of rules. 2) You are correct that an unlicensed angler currently can posses more than you can with your Conservation license. May not seem right or fair but that's just the way she goes. The upside is that you can go fishing and they cannot!

That is what the answer says doesn't it?? It says someone without a license (regardless of age) can possess a sportsman's limit....not sure what you are reading differently.

I justify mine by thinking about the amount of enjoyment my wife has when I leave her at home and go fishing! She loves the boat almost as much as I do and never sets foot in it!

Here is the link to the 200 'Ask a CO' questions and answers from the Ministry. I don't feel like going through them all again but somewhere in there it says a slot size or out of season fish must be released regardless of its condition. Again, not trying to make sense of it or defend it but that's what the answer was. http://www.outdoorontario.net/AskMNR/mnrfaqfish.html Edit: Slow morning at G.mech's house so I waded through the Q&A's and found this in Q#168: Also, many of these questions are quite old but I think most of the interpretations are still valid. I did however notice a couple of specific questions around bait, moving live fish, limits, & sanctuaries etc that are outdated due to some regulation changes.....

See post 4 in the thread above, the answer came from the ministry: Question 164a: Related to this, is the possession limit for the recipient the same as what the angler has? I.e., if the angler has a conservation licence, is the recipient of the fish bound by conservation limits? Answer from the MNR The possession limit for the recipient is that of a regular (non-conservation) licence. If you want to check with them again, here is the link to contact them: https://www.ontario.ca/feedback/contact-us?id=26930&nid=65620

May not make any sense but that's how it is. Things would be much easier if they just got rid of the Conservation License....

I recall seeing that in a Q&A page and it was relating to transporting your fish along with somebody else's when they aren't with you as you suggest. I have done that myself and it's a very good idea that may save a lot of explaining if you get checked as you are in fact over your possession limit.. I don't think they care if you have all your particulars on a package of fish you give away though but what can it hurt?

Okay the question was asked and the MNR answered clearly in writing which I cut and pasted with the info highlighted in RED. above. Even a person with a 'Deemed License' is allowed a full sportsman's limit which is in black white in the regs. The Conservation limits are just plain confusing...

Even at zero possession, you can still practice C&R legally.

'Zero limit" means you can target the fish but C&R only. Closed means no targeting of that species or no fishing at all in the case of a sanctuary. The zero limit is covered on the top right corner of page 7 of the regs which reads:

Transporting = Possession as far as the MNR is concerned. Your room mate can have a full sportsman's limit....

Nowhere in the entire cut and pasted clip does the word 'exporting' even appear...not sure what you are referring to. I don't see anywhere in any regs that you need the fisherman's 'particulars' if you can post a link or something it would be helpful.

I went out to sea trial a used boat once and it did a similar thing to that when we hit about 45mph. It didn't toss us over the side but almost did. Worse yet the throttle was still down and the lanyard wasn't attached. It was a bit of a hairy side to side, head slamming ride until we got it shut down. Found out that the boat had been sitting for a long period with a small hydraulic leak which led to free play in the steering. I always check for slop in the steering before I launch now....lanyards and life jackets became more popular after that too.

The following are cut and pasted from the 'Ask a CO' on Outdoorontario.net: http://www.outdoorontario.net/AskMNR/mnrfaqfish.html Question 38: Does a person need a fishing licence if they have fish (ie. salmon) in their possession (freezer) even if the fish was given to them? Can i legally give a fish i caught to someone who doesn't have a licence or might they be in violation of the act? Answer from the MNR: There is absolutely no problem with you giving fish to a friend or anyone else and they do not need a fishing licence. The same goes for game and is widely used by hunters who have participated in the OFAH food for the need y project. That being said, there are a couple of points to remember. a) Those fish still are part of your daily limit. In other words you cannot take your girlfriend out fishing with you even though she does not fish, but ‘give’ her a limit, so that you can catch a second limit on the same day. The actual wording is “catch and retain in one day or possess”. You could, however, catch a limit of walleyes today, take them home and give them to your mother-in-law (hey, this is hypothetical!) then go out the next day and catch a limit for yourself. Remember that fish in your freezer are part of your limit, so you cannot have six, ten, or twenty limits of walleye in your freezer at home, even though you only took them six per day. Possession limits apply to the receiving individual as well. Question 164: This has already been answered, but I have been told a CO has given a different response, so I'm just checking again. Sorry to be repetitive: An angler catches his limit of, say, 2 lakers and gives them to his neighbor who does not fish and has no fishing licence. The next day, same angler catches another two lakers and again gives them to the same neighbor. This goes on until the neighbor has 18 lakers in his freezer. The response in Question 38 says this is illegal. I.e., an angler may give away his daily limit (although be may not continue fishing that day), but the recipient is then bound by the possession limit and hence cannot have in his freezer more than that. I assume that if there are other members in the household, each of them could also have their limit, so that unless there are 9 people in the house, having 18 lakers in the freezer is illegal. But a reliable source just told me a CO told him this is perfectly OK. Comments? Answer from the MNR This is correct as is the response to Question 38. One person can have his/her possession limit and no more, regardless if they possess a fishing licence or not. Question 164a: Related to this, is the possession limit for the recipient the same as what the angler has? I.e., if the angler has a conservation licence, is the recipient of the fish bound by conservation limits? Answer from the MNR The possession limit for the recipient is that of a regular (non-conservation) licence. Question 164b: I got the feeling talking to the person that the confusion arises due to the neighbor not being licenced, as though the regulations apply only to licenced anglers physically out there fishing. I.e, if somebody gives you a fish, you are not bound by the regs. To add to the confusion, Question 66, which asks if it is illegal to possess a fish if you don't have a licence is still "with MNR for clarification". Perhaps that question and lack of reply has spawned the above Answer from the MNR It is legal to possess fish without an angling licence.

I agree 100%, they are certainly stretching things in a lot of these 'interpretation' cases and I am not defending them. Some call it 'bullpup' others use a very slightly different word.

Kind of hijacking the thread here but Johnny Law may not have been 100% clear in his explanation to you... The RCMP do not have the power to change the law (ie the Firearms Act) but they can change regulations made under it since they have been afforded that power by the Act itself. The 'Act' is the law and any change to an Act must go to the Legislature or Parliament. Most Acts dictate what body has the power to make and change the 'Regulations' under each act. For example: the OMNR&F has the power to revise their fishing and hunting regulations made under the Fish and Game Act without the Act having to be changed itself. The Occupational Health and Safety Act rarely changes but the many Regulations made under it are changed quite frequently by the MOL. The MOT can change many traffic Regulations without the HTA being changed. The TSSA is given authority under the B&PV Act to make and ammend regulations under it. etc.etc By Definition:

Again, I just posted a link to an article with an alternative viewpoint...did I say I agreed with it??? Does our Provincial government give us the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?? Maybe reality lies somewhere in between....