kickingfrog

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!

Anglers are just as sexy as cowboys.

There's a split personality or schizophrenia joke in there somewhere...

Great stuff! Bernie's place is right by my uncle's. Man, I love that part of the Lake.

Good to see your perseverance paid off.

Double uni counts as 2.

Used to be improved clinch (not for braid though). Now I use the palomar knot most of the time. I can't remember the name of the knot I use for braid, it is recommended by the manufacturer.

Just off the phone with my uncle, he lives on the South Shore. Water is high. The wind and waves the last 2 nights have made fishing difficult/ impossible. My cousin went out this morning but wasn't back yet. Things might be good for you next weekend.

Great trip report! Looks like I need to find myself a bow paddler. Feel like divulging the lures of choice?

Fair enough. I don't have the "outdoors" channels (must not have been during a commercial when my wife brought it up ) We do have a slick PVR that can tape 2 shows at once, as well as pausing 2 live tv channels at the same time, that makes sports viewing much more enjoyable. Not to mention this would have saved a lot of fights between my brother and I 25 years ago. I can tape all the fishin' shows I want and scan through to the money shots. I can watch four 30 minute shows in less than an hour.

Tasty! I guess my invite got lost in the mail.

Change the channel, or turn it off. Next "problem"?

Right, legal and ethic are not always the same thing. I'll throw hypothetical situation out there: I go walleye fishing once a year to a lake/zone that has a 4 fish daily limit and 8 possession. I fish three days. I catch and keep 4 fish, 4 fish and 4 fish. I don't eat any of the 12 fish and bring them home to eat over the next several months. I am breaking the law by being over my possession limit. My friend who lives on the lake fishes every weekend (the lucky sod) and keeps 2 fish every time and eats them right away, over 100 fish during the season. Totally legal. He's legal, I'm not. Who made less of an impact on the fish stock? Are my ethics "better" than his? Who is right? Another situation: My mother only goes out once with me during my three days of fishing and keeps 5 walleye (she still can out fish me) to take home. Total fish removed from the system: Mom 5 -braking the law Me 12 - breaking the law My friend 100 plus - legal Again a hypothetical scenario for demonstrations only.

Lots of other great photos on NASA's site: http://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/imagegallery/iotd.html NASA image of shuttle against the sun:

http://www.thebarrieexaminer.com/ArticleDi....aspx?e=1570549 Anglers pulled from the bay Posted 2:00pm May 15, 2009 Two fishermen were plucked by police from Kempenfelt Bay’s frigid waters Thursday after their boat capsized in rough conditions. Barrie city police said the men went out in their 16-foot bass boat at about 4:30 p.m. One lost his balance and went overboard. While trying to get back into the boat, a large wave hit the vessel and it took on water. The boat capsized and both men went into the drink. The police marine unit located the two and plucked them safely from the seven-degree-Celsius water. The boat was towed to a local marina. Police are reminding boaters the water is still cold, conditions can be rough at this time of year and that life jackets save lives.

How do you put multiple quotes from different posters into one reply??? Anyway I'll try to respond as best as I can: No I didn't keep the fish, although I would have got some pictures that way. I don't love the taste of lake trout enough to bother most times. The lakes have good fishing and the ice-out timing was good as well, but one person fishing in a canoe in unpredictable winds is a big challenge. I have never had any close calls (I'd type that even if I thought my wife didn't read this). I have only seen a bear once in the park while paddling (more while driving) I have seen more moose than bears (still way more while driving). The raccoons are the biggest nuisance, they always sound like a bear a night too. lol. One time I got up at night to see what all the racket was and when I flashed my light up to the tree that my pack was hanging from to see a raccoon was hanging down headfirst from the tree limb trying to get into my foodbag. The darn thing looked at me and then went right back to trying to get my vittles. It took a couple a stick tosses to dissuade him to look for a meal elsewhere. Thievin' bandits. The biggest worry I have is getting to the park, lots of bozos on the road. The other big worry is night-time driving through the park and MOOSE. Bowinkle is hard to see. I try hard not to drive through the park at night.

I am sure you smell something.... better check your livewell. Lots of empty seats in hokey town, you could get tickets and fish the river.

The question was not what is better but what casts farther. Quality lines guides are now made to stand up to braid.

I usually try not to hit the rocks when I'm casting my musky baits??? And despite what some of my fishing partners will tell you, I have never repeatedly cast onto the middle of someones driveway. Valid test.

I have used glow in the dark jig heads, as well as glow in the dark power baits for nighttime walleye.

Good thing you posted that photo Randy. I had envisioned the flames on the hull, not the engine cowling.