kickingfrog

Good Luck. Fishing is great therapy.

Wow! Dawson's growing up fast. Good to see you look the same Marty.

I was just looking for that post/boat last week. I'm starting to look for my dream boat. Lots of great ideas. Thanks for re-posting that.

Loudmouth bullies want to tell everyone else how they should act and fish. If you stand-up for yourself, then get into a physical confrontation and end up breaking loudmouths nose you know the whinny punk will sue you butt. Or he kicks your butt and sues you because he hurt his hand hitting your face. Lose, lose. Police officers are peace officers, at the very least a phone call would start a paper trail of behaviour that may be useful if there are further incidents.

I hate trying to id tracks from photos, but I'll say yes, the first ones were a porcupine. Did they look pigeoned toed? Or a wolverine with a set of antlers tied to his back.

You never forget your first.

Cola will "clean-up" a lot of things. So will vinegar. Baking soda can be used as an abrasive. I would think an internet search would turn up a lot of options.

Hee Haw was great. Right after it was Hockey Night in Canada. And without Hee Haw I wouldn't understand a darn thing Dawg says, or types.

No it was the third mast from the left at the top of the pic... everybody knows that sailboat. Nice pike.

You can't scare me Dawg, I've seen you in person.

DP=double post

Hey Dawg in the days of film you didn't waste an exposer on regular sized fish, or has it been too long for you?

Actually a seat belt would interfere with my casting arm. It is a personal choice, and my seatbelt comment was not directed to your particular post, but more of a general statement. I wear my seatbelt because it will save my life. You are right, the law doesn't say you have to wear a PFD, but I'm far to intelligent to leave my safety decisions up to the government. If you're worried about it interfering with casting you may not have tried enough pfds. I wear a paddling pfd. It doesn't interfere with advanced paddle manoeuvres and certainly does not interfere with fishing. I usually forget I have it on until I sit in my car. No padding on the sides Under a 2 different rain jackets: But doesn't help you hold onto fish. The condom analogy is so irrelevant I won't get into it, except to say that I don't need to worry about not having enough time, drunk or not, to be able to get one on before I needed it.

I think Polarized sunglasses are a must as well. Not so much for the fish, but for everything else that can be in a small stream. May save you a lure or 20.

I don't intend to ever get into a car accident, but I always wear my seatbelt.

Just a reminder, it's on tonight. 8pm eastern and again at midnight and 3pm Friday afternoon. I'll be PVRing it, so don't tell me how it ends.

No! Don't catch any fish and slime-up that beautiful boat. Fish are slimy, smelly and sometimes do things when in a boat.

Beautiful.

“You’d have to be retarded if you can’t see dang’ water in front of you,” said Councillor Rob Ford (Etobicoke North) What an intelligent and articulate way for a politician to make a point.

Ya, don't you just hate that. Nice ones!

If you're waring it a lot, the first priority is: is it comfortable enough to ware all day? If you're getting them so that you have enough for visitors on your boat and they may or may not ware them all the time. Go for it. I thought all PFD's had a "expiration date" anyway???

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/sto...NStory/Science/ Meet - and eat - the modified Atlantic salmon FDA to approve Aqua Bounty's new fish tweaked with genetic material from chinook salmon and eel-like species called ocean pout Article Comments (30) OLIVER MOORE From Wednesday's Globe and Mail May 20, 2009 at 4:31 AM EDT It looks like a normal Atlantic salmon, and the fish's creators say it tastes like one, too. But this is no ordinary fish that Aqua Bounty Technologies has produced. Tweaked with genetic material from chinook salmon and an eel-like creature called an ocean pout, it reaches market size twice as fast as normal Atlantic salmon, the company says. Aqua Bounty has spent more than a decade chasing U.S. regulatory approval, which Food and Drug Administration officials have reportedly said is coming "soon." It would be a watershed moment - there are currently no genetically engineered animals approved for sale as food anywhere in the world - and opponents are predicting a wave of consumer outrage. Enlarge Image Transgenic fish, that glow fluorescent gold in the dark, on display in Taiwan. There are currently no genetically engineered animals approved for sale as food anywhere in the world. (Sam Yeh/AFP/Getty Images) "We don't have that same level of negative reaction [as in Europe] at present but I suspect it will come up when food animals are approved," said Jeff Hutchings, a professor of biology at Dalhousie University and a member of the Royal Society of Canada's expert panel on biotechnology. The Massachusetts-headquartered company, which has operations in Prince Edward Island and Newfoundland, has not applied for approval in Canada. But trade law could force Ottawa's hand following U.S. approval, making it irrelevant whether the Canadian consumer wants these fish or not. Under current Canadian law, GE foods do not need to be labelled. Ottawa is clearly aware of the sensitivity of the issue. Briefing notes prepared recently for Fisheries Minister Gail Shea acknowledge that GE fish being approved in the United States could provoke trade issues and public concerns in Canada. The document, obtained by researcher Ken Rubin under the Access to Information Act, notes that consumers might be concerned about Ottawa's ability to keep out these fish and warns the United States would probably press Canada to speed up its own approval. "Should U.S. companies pursue the export of GE salmon products in the future, this issue could become a trade irritant," notes the document, prepared in the past few months. The document also insists that U.S. approval "would not imply" approval in Canada, but several observers believe a challenge under current trade laws could produce just that result. "It's the U.S. that will be approving this product and then it's the Canadian government that will be forced to act," said Lucy Sharratt, co-ordinator with the Canadian Biotechnology Action Network in Ottawa. "I think that's what this company is counting on." Lawrence Herman, senior counsel with Cassels Brock in Toronto, explains that countries have the sovereign right under international law to safeguard the lives and health of their citizens. But he adds that there's a wrinkle. "Under the WTO agreement, the U.S. or some other country could ... argue that, not departing from our sovereign rights, a Canadian import ban was not justified on internationally-accepted scientific, health and food safety grounds," he wrote in an e-mail exchange. It's the same argument, he added, that Ottawa is making with Japan and Korea over bovine spongiform encephalopathy, or mad-cow disease. "If it could be shown that the U.S. law met all accepted international health and safety standards, it might call into question whether the Canadian import ban is legally necessary to protect Canadians. Under international trade law, an import ban can be struck down if there are less trade-restrictive avenues available to meet health and safety concerns." The company stresses that its product is safe. Officials did not respond to requests for comment for this story, but CEO Ronald Stotish has previously said that he has tasted and enjoyed the modified fish. Whether consumers will be as willing to eat these fish remains to be seen. The debate over GE crops was heated, but activists say the introduction of GE animals as food will be even more controversial. The briefing note prepared for Ms. Shea acknowledged the strong feelings surrounding GE foods, including in markets now enjoyed by Canadian fish. "If Canada were to approve GE salmon for food use at some point in the future, there could be implications for Canada's export of non-GE salmon if foreign buyers of Canadian salmon (e.g. European Union members) are not confident in Canada's ability to prove segregation and the non-GE status of Canadian fish exports."

Ha Ha. More cow for you? You haven't seen my friends surf 'n' turf "plate breakers specials". Or how big he is. I think the one outing one meal idea has some merit, in theory, but I'm sure the politicos would be unwilling to discuss it.

If that was related to my post, that was part of my point. The poacher, who as I stated is breaking the law, is impacting the fishery less than the angler who is not breaking the law. Right, legal and ethical are not always the same thing. These are exactly the type of things that need to be discussed here and in the offices where decisions are made. Here's another scenario: I catch 1 walleye that is 1cm into the slot that says it can't be kept. I keep it, it is the only fish that I keep. Poacher My friend keeps his limit of 4 walleye that are half a cm smaller (or bigger) than the slot. Completely within the law. Again the poacher has probably had less of a negative impact on the fishery. Anybody have a headache yet? My ultimate point is someone can be completely within the law, and feel quite self righteous, and still have a harmful impact on a fishery. Which, I think, was the point of the original post As people who use a delicate resource, we need to go beyond the posted regulations sometimes if we want to continue to enjoy our recreation.

I like that idea a lot!