Chris

Matt, VHS, gobies, zebra mussels and cormorants have been around long, long before 2004....where did you get your info? And how do you quantify the damage done by those invasive species? Do you have a study or report? Besides how is regulating anglers going to prevent diseases like VHS and invasive species like gobies, zebra mussels and cormorants? Regulating anglers is a bandaid solution to a bigger problem (ie. ships dumping ballast in the Great Lakes). Why not tackle the real problem and have an area where foreign ships can safely dump ballast BEFORE entering the Seaway as Marc suggested. Why allow them to dump and then take it out on anglers thru restrictive regs? You will have to take that up with the biologists who made those claims. Matt, it seems you only want to agree with them when they support your position. Matt, I don't understand, on one hand you agree that our fisheries are stable and sustainable....and yet you are also claiming that the "resource is in need of as much help as possible." Can you please be more specific (maybe a study or report backing your statement) with what has happened in the three open seasons that have occurred since Nov. 2004 that have wreaked havoc on our resource. Pointing out a few waterbodies that have had problems (LSC and the Larry) is not representative of the resource in whole and does not mean that those fisheries have been ruined beyond recovery. Nature has a funny way of balancing things out. If you still feel that anglers are somehow responsible for problems on the Larry, maybe consider the 6 large muskies harvested from the St. Lawrence in the past 4 years by your fellow members. I've got no problem with someone keeping a fish of a lifetime, but don't you think it's hypocritical for a group that is fanatical about promoting C&R to others, to bag six large specimens from a single waterbody that's already been hit with VHS. Again Matt, you're claiming that you will listen to scientists and biologists yet it seems you are only willing to listen to them when they support your position.

Hi, Matt I would like to respectfully challenge a few of your comments. While I believe that we all need to continue to look out for the best interests of our resources, I think you will actually find that most biologists believe our fisheries are improving and are in great shape. Matt, I know you like muskies, so here is a few quotes from a Nov. 2004 MNR publication which discusses the characteristics of Ontario muskellunge fisheries, written by Steve Kerr. "Angling success, in terms of catch-per-unit-effort, has improved over the past twenty-five years and Ontario waters now provide some of the highest quality muskellunge fisheries in North America." and "Overall, Ontario's muskellunge fisheries appear to be stable and sustainable. This can be attributed to an increase in the catch-and-release ethic as well as new minimun size limit regulations." As well, Dr. Casselman, while giving a speech at the Muskie Symposium in Indianappolis a few years ago, stated that Ontario's muskellunge fisheries have never been better. NEVER BEEN BETTER, Matt!!!! I know there was a video clip of the speech going around on one of the other forums, maybe you should google or youtube it and check for yourself. Steve Kerr's publication is available thru the MNR. Are you referring to biologists or your club??? I think you will find that most biologists would disagree with your position. If you're referring to your club, then this is a real good example of how a club with a special interest CAN have an effect on someone's thinking.

What goes around comes around.

Hi, it's seems that there is a perception among some that our fisheries are in decline. According to the MNR most waterbodies have healthy and sustainable fish populations. The ones that don't are taken care of thru rehab, temporary reg changes, etc. As well, numbers of new anglers to the sport are actually in decline, contrary to the more popular belief that there are more and more anglers. Our fisheries have many things that negatively impact them, however, despite this our fisheries are for the most part in great shape. I feel that the single most positive thing that has benefitted the fisheries is the voluntary movement by sportsmen towards quality C&R. What concerns me the most is that because there is a perception that our fisheries are in decline, the calls for more and more restrictive regs have increased. Most of the new regs, quite frankly, are not going to have an impact one way or the other. As well, many of the new regs will not be enforced. The end result....the scofflaws will still do what they do but the guys abiding by the law have another right taken away. A good example is the new 5.1" limit on live bait. In what way will this new reg positively impact the fishery??? Probably not much, except that a bunch of law-abiding anglers who used to fish with bigger live bait can no longer do so. And 5.1" will not be the end. Live bait fishing may become a thing of the past in the near future if we allow it to happen. Another one is unreasonably high size limits. I feel that 54" for muskies on some waterbodies is too high, essentially making those fisheries C&R only, but now there's a cry for a 58" size limit on G-Bay. Where will it end??? I have been fishing for over 40 years and I have seen many fishing rights eroded over the years, but not as fast they are being eroded in the last 10 years. The MNR has several core tools such as possesion limits, size limits, season limits, equipment limitations etc. which they use for managing fisheries (or should I say managing anglers). Would you rather see the MNR spending their time working on, tweaking, changing, and creating new regs (that for the most part will not be enforced) or would you rather see them focus more on enforcing the existing core regs which actually do have a positive impact on our fisheries??? More money and more regs is not the answer. I am not as much worried about having a fishery for future generations as I am about future generations having the right to fish.

The next legal muskie I catch will be going to a taxidermist.

Wowwwweeee

Haha she just wants you outta the house

na na nana na naaaaa hey hey good night

As angry as you are at your landlord, my advice would be to turn the other cheek and concentrate on happily moving into your new place. Your landlord will get his just desserts as time goes on. I can't believe some people are suggesting seeking revenge or breaking the law, you're just lowering yourself to your landlords level if you follow that advice. Just my opinion for what it's worth.

I really chuckle when I hear people putting down tournaments or putting down being competitive. People like to romanticize about how they love the peace and serenity of just becoming one with nature. But growing up as a kid and fishing with many other kids from varied backgrounds along the banks of the South Nation River there was ALWAYS competition, and with no adult pressure. Who could cast the farthest, who caught the most fish at the end of the day, who caught the biggest, who had the nicest rod and reel, who had the biggest selection of lures. It was the same with bikes. Who could pedal the fastest, who could do the longest catwalk, who had the nicest bike, etc. It's just the way humans are. Think back and honestly ask yourself if this was not the case with you too. As I grew older and started to fish different bodies of water and meet new people, it was the same thing. When talking about fishing it usually ends up being a comparison of big fish, boats or motors and who's got what and how many. For example, how many kids take up soccer (our fastest growing sport as someone pointed out) just for the sheer joy of kicking a ball around while enjoying the outdoor experience? Answer: none, they get into it to compete and to try to to win. There is no doubt that tournament anglers are in a minority in this country and even on this OFC message board. I personally have seen nothing offensive in any of Frank's comments, yet there have been several insulting comments made towards him. Why is it that some people can't stand to see someone with different interests having a good time doing what they enjoy doing?

Now that there is a perfect report on a perfect trip.

And all have recently received or are asking for major government funding to study climate change (on top of the funding they are already getting). Kinda says it all right there. I'm done with this thread too, but I'll leave you with the famous words of P.T. Barnum: "There's a sucker born every minute". p.s. Thanks for the links Andy (and everyone else who put up links)

Well if George W. Bush says it's humans then it must be true right Rick. Same as Harper. Leaning that way ONLY because it's the flavour of the day and they want votes. I can garantee that neither of these men would give a hoot about global warming if people were not caught up in the hype. I have never said that. Rick, you are confusing global warming with pollution abatement. Pollution comes in many forms. Air pollution is only one. I have not said anything in any of my posts about pollution abatement. Kyoto is mainly about CO2 emmisions, not garbage at a boat launch. If you do not think jobs would be lost if Kyoto was implemented then you are living in a dreamworld. Please re-read my posts and watch the video. If you can dispute the theories in the video, we're all ears. Uh Rick, I think you are confusing pollution with global warming again. They are two different things. Yes, humans contribute to CO2 in the atmosphere, but to what extent, if any, has this contributed to global warming. Can you answer that Rick? The video offers the .54% number. I'm not saying that number is true, I'm not a scientist. Please dispute that number if you have other information. Dan C, I notice you have also jumped on the "human global warming" bandwagon. Yet I see in the lawn mower post you are advising the guy to go with a larger engine. As a matter of fact, ask anyone on this message board what size outboard you should get for your boat and almost everyone will tell you to max out the HP. Why, because outboard manufacturers have had their reps (fishing pros) convince people that anything less than maxing out your HP will be catostrophic. So, I have got a question for those who think the world is ending next year. How many of you are willing to give up your outboard motors and trucks to stop the world from melting. I mean really, fishing is only a pastime not an essential requirement for sustaining life. It's you guys that have said that even a slight reduction in greenhouse gases helps us all.

I think if you watch the video you will see that many of the reported 2000 scientists that activists claim support the CO2 global warming theory, have since withdrawn their support. One scientist who demanded his name be removed from the list of 2000 had to threaten a lawsuit before they would remove his name. None of the scientists in the video claim that global warming is a myth. Scientists on both sides of the debate agree that the earth's temp is rising. Gore/Suzuki/Activists claim overloading the atmosphere with CO2 is the cause of global warming. The video's scientists point out that CO2 only makes up .54% of greenhouse gases. And man's contribution to CO2 in the atmosphere is almost insignificant compared to the amount of CO2 produced by the oceans and volcanoes and animals. Restrictive regulations, while maybe erring on the side of caution, could mean thousands of lost jobs as businesses try to cope with the high cost of restructuring. But that seems to fit in with corporate North America who is looking to move manufacturing jobs to less restrictive countries (where the labour is dirt cheap). Pretty convenient for them to explain away lost jobs when they can blame it on the restrictions levied to battle global warming. There is no doubt higher temps will cause many things to happen, for example polar bear movements are already being observed. Once again, if you watch the video it explains that the earth went through a period of much higher temps in the past, and amazingly polar bears survived that period in time. I was amazed at a presentation given by Michael Butler at an MCI meeting a while back where he explained that throughout the history of the muskellunge the earth has spent more time under ice than with green fields and blue water. How did those muskies every survive such a catastrophic event as the last ice age. Rick, who in this thread or in the video is claiming that air pollution is a myth?

Pigeontroller: I have never said that.

WOW, just like they said in the video. When the activists are faced with a theory other than their own, they resort to insults and name calling. bookoobeast: C'mon, an insult is an insult. Here's a suggestion for pigeontroller, bookoobeast and others. Try actually watching the video and if you disagree then come on here dispute the facts rather than trying to sound superior by throwing insults. This debate is not about garbage thrown at a boat ramp. It's about the cause of global warming. Nobody is diputing tha fact that the earth's temperature has risen 1/2 a degree in the last hundred years, but most of the warming took place BEFORE the industrial revolution. The world had periods of much higher temperatures in the past before cars and factories. But I guess you would have known that had you actually watched the video. I tend to place my confidence in professionals in the field, not politicians trying to make a buck selling CO2 tickets or a doom predicting honorary scientist charging $200 a plate for global warming seminars. Where has Suzuki been for the last 15 years....not a peep. Now with the recent global warming fearmongering he's at the forefront getting rich. Watch the video before commenting please.

Hi, this link was buried in another thread about light bulbs. I just thought I'd put it under it's own topic as there was a lot of debate on this site about global warming. Anyone who wants to see the opposite side of the Al Gore/activist coin should watch this video. Anyone who truly believes humans are the cause of global warming should watch this. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XttV2C6B8pU

lundboy thanks for that link. Very interesting.

I personally wouldn't believe a word spoken from the mouth of a greenpeace activist.

Irishfield: I have said the same thing before. I don't understand where Lund's got the rep of being more expensive than other lines of boats. When I bought my Lund I had checked similar models in Crestliner, Princecraft, Smokercraft and Lowe. It finally came down to a decision between the Lund, Crestliner and Princecraft. All three were comparable in quality and design and even in price. I purchased the Lund only because the local Lund dealer also sold Hondas and was set up for that motor. My boat is the baby bowrider of Lund's line-up so I don't know if it's the same with the higher end boats, but Irishfield seems to confirm that. There are lots of Lund owners on this site. What is everyones experience with price comparisons???

Welcome back paleface

bookoobeast, please do not get me wrong. I am all for better use of our resources and less polluting. However, I think the theory that mankind is behind global warming is nothing more than the same old fearmongering from the same old sources who are trying to get the same old huge amounts of cash from the same old taxpayers.

Haha, the oldest management trick in the book. How to get funding 101. I remember working at a factory where the engineers were marvelling at how efficient the plant manager was at getting capital funds for projects from the head office. His method was to first create a problem, then let it grow out of control, and then ask for funding to fix the problem. I've been on this earth long enough to see this happen in every walk of life. In fact, the last election was all about health care wait times (another problem created by government that requires plenty of funding to fix) and wait times have only gotten worse. Yet nobody's concerned about wait times this year. Why not, because we've been fed a steady diet of environmental gloom and doom since the last election. And guess what, to fix global warming politicians are gonna have to dig deeper into our pockets for more money. Fear sells, for those interested in buying.

Whatever. Bottom line is.....if you are NOT comfortable merely following the tow capacity rating of your vehicle, by all means knock yourself out with extra brakes, jake brakes, oil coolers, tranny coolers, beefed up shocks, coil overs , etc. etc. Nobody will criticize you for it. For those who are comfortable making and living by their own decisions, just follow the recommended tow capacity and you will be fine (except for a bit of criticism from those who disagree with you).

Sorry about that Tybo, I had no idea you were a mechanic when I posted. As I mentioned I had a car with a 1000 lb. towing capacity and the rig with equipment included weighed approx. 750 lbs. You're telling me I'm unsafe?!?!?! I guess the manufacturers rating is wrong/unsafe then too??? Can you explain how I was putting others in danger??? I don't believe I ever said it was OK to tow more than the vehicles capacity. Extra shocks and coilovers??? On a 1,000lb. rig the toungue weight should only be 100lbs. anyway you need beefed up suspension for that??? I agree 100% that most people don't use common sense. I got passed by a guy in a F-150 towing a 14' tinny. Not only was he way over the speed limit but the back of the trailer was swaying violently from side to side all the way down the road. More than enough towing capicty, but not enough common sense to properly adjust the tongue weight and/or tire pressure and to slow down. That braking Honda you mentioned wouldn't had a chance with this clown either.