scuro

WHOA Gang. Some super nice words there. Thanks.

 

Will keep putting up reports as long they're enjoyed.

Who doesn't enjoy that lovely turn of phrase of yours, the most unusual scenery, and the winsome supporting cast.

Three trips I would do under ideal conditions:

1)Pike - just predictable enough to keep you in the game

2)Mountain trout - I love catching fish in a place where the scenery makes you ache

3)Tarpoon/snook/Bonefish/Cuda - everyone should do one trip down south fishing for one of these species

Awesome report once again Drew...A grin broke out across my face as soon as I saw the pic of Float sticking his head out the door...

I'm calling you Mr. October now What fall fish haven't you caught?

Rates will only go down if US continues to lower rates. There is just too much inflation out west. As for buying the boat...I'd say fine as long as your not maxing out your credit to do so. Now is not the time to be holding a lot debt.

I just wish you guys could put this much passion into your fishing reports !

I do put more passion into my fishing reports.

You get the sense that some would like to see this thread end, I get that...if I am taking the trouble to put together a major fishing story I don't want to compete with Al Goregasm or "Farmer shoots pet dog". I was asking for the end of this thread about a hundred posts ago. If you want to let political threads live on this forum then basically you should expect this. Politics does bring out passion in people because you are dealing with huge issues. Me personally...I can't stand it when I see disinformation in a public forum without the record being set straight.

Hmmm.... Now you've gone and done it, You've sucked me back into this thread!

 

Some people can never have their questions answered to their satisfaction. So I guess you are correct they have still to be answered... and forever will...

 

So in the spirit of giving you an answer and hopefully helping others to think for themselves here goes:

 

A good portion of the 2500 scientists that the UN reported (the report called the Intergovernmental Panel On Climate Change) earlier this year, as providing their scientific opinion in favor of the man made (read Al Gore made, yes the same guy that invented the Internet) global warming, have publicly come forward and said that they do not agree with the report findings and had their names used without their permission. One has went as far as to threaten to sue the UN to have his name removed (I will get his name and post it).

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/financi...d1-5c755457a8af

 

Many many very credible scientists have stated that they disagree with the anthropogenic global warming theory and offer a lot of proof that this is a solar system wide phenomenon including some very prominent Canadians. Of course it would be very easy to accuse these academics of being on the "Big Oil" payroll without any proof whatsoever as to that fact, dismissing their professional opinions entirely.

 

http://www.climatechangeissues.com/cci-refute.php

http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/global...ming073107m.htm

http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/l...73-9cedae122bd1

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/ar...92-fc37d99cbac3

http://newsbusters.org/node/13731

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?Fus...8&Issue_id=

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3309910462407994295

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/SC0605/S00001.htm

http://meteo.lcd.lu/globalwarming/McLean/D...bal_Warming.pdf

 

What I'm trying to do here is get people to open their minds. Think for themselves. Greed plays a powerful roll in getting you to buy into the GW crises. Does anyone really believe that a global tax paid to the UN will "fix" global warming? It won't, it will only go into some obscenely rich elitist's pocket and we will do without whilst their lifestyle goes unhindered.

 

Does anyone want to be dictated to about how big their house can be, or how much heat they can have, or how many children they can have, or that they can't eat meat, or that they can only work at certain jobs, or that they can only have electricity for 4 hours a day, or that they can only have a liter of water a day, or to be surveiled and micro managed every minute of their life, or worse yet chipped and stopped at check points if you are allowed and can afford to travel? Or how about only allowing you to live until 30?

 

Because it's already started, most of what I just listed above. Total control of everything you do. Giving up everything you have, and everything you enjoy (I don't know about you, but I like fishing). It has very little to do with "saving the earth". It's like George Carlin says:

"Compared to the people, the planet is doing great. Been here four and a half billion years. Did you ever think about the arithmetic? The planet has been here four and a half billion years. We've been here, what, a hundred thousand? Maybe two hundred thousand? And we've only been engaged in heavy industry for a little over two hundred years. Two hundred years versus four and a half billion. And we have the CONCEIT to think that somehow we're a threat? That somehow we're gonna put in jeopardy this beautiful little blue-green ball that's just a-floatin' around the sun?

 

The planet has been through a lot worse than us. Been through all kinds of things worse than us. Been through earthquakes, volcanoes, plate tectonics, continental drift, solar flares, sun spots, magnetic storms, the magnetic reversal of the poles, hundreds of thousands of years of bombardment by comets and asteroids and meteors, worldwide floods, tidal waves, worldwide fires, erosion, cosmic rays, recurring ice age. And we think some plastic bags, and some aluminum cans are going to make a difference? The planet... the planet... the planet isn't going anywhere. WE ARE!"

http://gospelofreason.wordpress.com/2007/0...planet-is-fine/

 

There is no evidence to suggest that 4500 years ago the ice caps didn't recede at the same or quicker rate than they are now. Ice core samples can't tell that. And there wasn't satellites or people taking pictures of the arctic back then. It's all based on "Scientific Guesses" just like dinosaurs had green skin.

 

If you do not look, you cannot see.

-Al Gore had nothing to do with the formation of the Intergovernmental Panel On Climate Change which formed in 1988. It has posted four assessment reports, the first one was in 1990. Gore wasn't speaking publicly about this issue then. Both dates are before he was even the vice-president. The last assessment in 2007 stated;"Global atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide have increased markedly as a result of human activities since 1750 and now far exceed pre-industrial values over the past 650,000 years".

-No the world won't become another Venus because of global warming. Simply if the models are true the most notable change will be radically different weather as we know it and a rise in sea levels that should put some cities like New York under several ft of water. Why radically different weather? Without a polar ice cap you won't have arctic air masses sweeping down from the north until the water over the pole freezes solid first. Global warming would predict that with less ice covering the arctic ocean, fall and early winter temperature averages should rise significantly in our region. With the huge melt of arctic sea ice last summer I'd take a bet that fall temperatures will be warmer this year. This is a trend that should continue.

-When consensus statements are made critics usually attack anything but the issue. This time we hear about the scientists tricked into lending their name to the statement and the bucket load of scientists who believe we are going through solar system warming cycle. Can they not simply stick to the facts and if they believe their position to be right form a bigger consensus? The size and quality of scientists within a consensus does matter.

-Only the loony Neocons of the US could come up with such a dopy theory that global warming is a fake issue created so that the UN can collect taxes from the world to be used by UN bureaucrats to control the world. Only those true US patriots and all those who love freedom can save us! Look out. Kofi Annan is coming to confiscate your handgun. The US hates the UN...and doesn't even pay most of it's dues. The UN is seen as being a feckless body. The EU has difficulty staying together, and free trade is shaky also...this in the developed northern countries. Yet all of Asia, Africa, the Americas, and Europe is supposed to be ruled by one world body that has authority over everything? Open your eyes, it ain't going happen in our lifetime.

Nuclear reactors use Uranium Dioxide UO2 pellets (including the Candu-Deuturium reactors, known as heavy water). There is no Plutonium produced at these plants. Only breeder reactors produce plutonium and they are few and far between.

From Canteach-The most comprehensive educational and reference library on CANDU technology

http://canteach.candu.org/

canteach.candu.org/library/20040708.pdf

When a reactor is first fuelled, the fuel is called fresh fuel. This initial fuel load is good for about 6 months. After this we remove and replace a few fuel bundles each day, a state called equilibrium fuelling. Radical changes occur in the composition of the fuel between the fresh and equilibrium conditions. Three significant changes are the depletion of the U-235, mostly by fission, the build-up of fission products, and the build-up of Pu-239 (a fissile fuel)...

Pu-239 is short for Plutonium-239.

I have made no references to Freemasons, nor have I even said that global warming doesn't exist. Merely the fact that it has been hijacked by higher powers that are using it to control us with taxes and guilt. What makes you so sure that it's not a natural cycle on this planet (which it is by the way). What makes you so sure that man-made CO2 is the worst thing that could happen to the planet, when it's part of the life cycle... plants crave it and convert it oxygen. When the polar ice caps retreated many centuries ago plants flourished (plants such as food crops will as well) because of an increase in C02. It's your friend, don't let someone convince you otherwise.

I'm not certain that global warming exists. Simply a body of evidence is building daily to support this theory, and as I evaluate the evidence I find it to be convincing. The ice cap is only one recent bit of evidence to look at, there are many, the speed of recent hurricane intensification would be another one. Sure it could all be natural cycles, there are times when Co2 peaks in the atmosphere, there are times when ice caps recede. What is unique is the speed of these changes. Generally most scientific communities accept the notion of global warming. Respectfully, we are on opposite sides of the coin on this one.

So global warming is make-believe and really just one of the many ways used to control the world through mass fear. That's sounding radical libertarian...conspiracy stuff. Let me guess Freemasons are involved. How did they get the ice cap to melt?

That is because nuclear power plants of old were unsafe and leaked toxic fumes......With the new technology they have today, they are much more safer, efficient and enviornmentaly friendly.

Nuclear power simply is uneconomical dollar for dollar. The immediate association I make when I hear the word "nuclear" is "cost overrun". Pickering has been a financial disaster and when those plants are all finally decommissioned I'm sure there will be further cost overruns. As far as toxic leaking goes the only real leaking into the atmosphere that I know of is Chernobyl. In risk analysis one looks at rewards vrs. risk. Sometimes a small put very dangerous risk can outweigh a powerful reward. The dangerous risks associated with Nuclear power is terrorism and to a lesser degree accidents. What is more disturbing is the fact that in case of an accident, and you and your property gets covered in fallout, our government has made it law that you can not sue them. One atom of Plutonium in your body WILL kill you. Finally the last risk of nuclear power is that the spent fuel can be used to make weapons grade nuclear bombs. You have to be careful where and how you store this stuff. To date we have not found a permanent storage facility for all of our waste. Deep bunkers under the Canadian shield have been suggested where it would have to sit for tens of thousands of years to become harmless. Those costs have yet to be factored into the final cost of nuclear power.

I'd vote for natural gas power plants or coal power plants that have much better filtration systems added to small micro projects such as wind. We have a lot of water control systems in Ontario that doesn't produce electricity. Both NG/coal would still be cheaper then nuclear power and have better risk reward profiles.

Wrong O, Because of the fear of Global Warming and The Kyoto Accord or anything similar, oil production facilities IE Canada, are to cut emissions.

Hey wrongo breath , ...give me one good reliable link that demonstrates that the price of oil almost reached $90 dollars today because of the cost of cutting emissions. There must of been a lot of emission cutting going on over the last year!

The price of oil is related to demand. Global warming if anything is decreasing demand. It is the increased demand of many global countries, that are now coming online economically at the same time... that is driving up demand. Think China, India, Brazil...etc.

Some new guy comes up with the idea every few months. The mods really appreciate input.

 

Okay, I'm picking on you, but cleanly and in fun.

 

We're glad to have you aboard and I understand why you came up with the suggestion.

Hey as far as being a member of this message board...I'm older then dirt. I must have joined the old board over five years ago but changed my name when they changed the format of the board.

I don't know about the rest of you but I'd prefer to have a fishing discussion area and a general discussion area. Then one can choose to read fishing threads, non-fishing threads, or both. Has anyone else ever suggested this?

I know, I got sucked in again, but this

 

"What is noteworthy are unique events such as the lowest Arctic ice coverage in history."

 

This is part of the problem, statements like this, especially the last six words in bold.

When you read the article, it clearly states

"The area covered by sea ice in the Arctic has shrunk to its lowest level this week since satellite measurements began nearly 30 years ago"

 

30 years is not quite the history of earth.

The last time there was no ice over the north pole was 50 million years ago. They are predicting that we will see water over the north pole in our life time. Scientists are simply stunned at the rate of decrease and have had to adjust their models many years forward. This is a unique and noteworthy event no matter what way you cut it.

Don't be shy Google is your friend.

 

here's the court ruling

11 inacurasies of Gore's film

You quoted from www.worldnetdaily.com. "A Free Press For A Free People". Below is the headline news for today from worldnetdaily. I only wonder what link of that website brings you to pics of the scantily clad girls. Keep in mind that what you quoted directly from came from this "news" source and it is their interpretation of the news that you shared with us.

WorldNetDaily Exclusive

'Mom' and 'Dad' banished by California

Schwarzenegger signs law banning anything perceived as negative to 'gays'

--WND

WorldNetDaily Exclusive

Mother accused of neglect for teaching own kids

Describes litany of harassment, intimidation at public district

--WND

WorldNetDaily Exclusive

Christian group apologizes for pro-life message

'We respect the separation educators need to have from the church world'

--WND

Teacher advocates 'sex play' among pre-schoolers

Backed by child psychologists, doesn't want to stifle what comes naturally

--Aftenposten, Norway

Contraception proposed for 11-year-olds

Officials say broad program 'totally needed' for middle schoolers

--Portland Press Herald

Scientific article that states Antarctic ice shelf is in fact getting larger.

 

http://www.gsfc.nasa.gov/topstory/20020820southseaice.html

Weather will change. What is noteworthy are unique events such as the lowest Arctic ice coverage in history.

http://www.physorg.com/news108986956.html

There have been a few unique hurricane events also this year.

FUN FACTS about CARBON DIOXIDE

 

Of the 186 billion tons of CO2 that enter earth's atmosphere each year from all sources, only 6 billion tons are from human activity. Approximately 90 billion tons come from biologic activity in earth's oceans and another 90 billion tons from such sources as volcanoes and decaying land plants.

 

At 368 parts per million CO2 is a minor constituent of earth's atmosphere-- less than 4/100ths of 1% of all gases present. Compared to former geologic times, earth's current atmosphere is CO2- impoverished.

 

CO2 is odorless, colorless, and tasteless. Plants absorb CO2 and emit oxygen as a waste product. Humans and animals breathe oxygen and emit CO2 as a waste product. Carbon dioxide is a nutrient, not a pollutant, and all life-- plants and animals alike-- benefit from more of it. All life on earth is carbon-based and CO2 is an essential ingredient. When plant-growers want to stimulate plant growth, they introduce more carbon dioxide.

 

CO2 that goes into the atmosphere does not stay there but is continually recycled by terrestrial plant life and earth's oceans-- the great retirement home for most terrestrial carbon dioxide.

 

Also read the latest court ruling:

 

And #9 answeres your melting question.

 

The inaccuracies, according to the court, are:

1. The film claims that melting snows on Mount Kilimanjaro evidence global warming. The Government's expert was forced to concede that this is not correct.

2. The film suggests that evidence from ice cores proves that rising CO2 causes temperature increases over 650,000 years. The court found that the film was misleading: Over that period the rises in CO2 lagged behind the temperature rises by 800-2000 years.

3. The film uses emotive images of Hurricane Katrina and suggests that this has been caused by global warming. The Government's expert had to accept that it was "not possible" to attribute one-off events to global warming.

4. The film shows the drying up of Lake Chad and claims that this was caused by global warming. The Government's expert had to accept that this was not the case.

5. The film claims that a study showed that polar bears had drowned due to disappearing arctic ice. It turned out that Mr. Gore had misread the study: In fact four polar bears drowned, and this was because of a particularly violent storm.

6. The film threatens that global warming could stop the Gulf Stream, throwing Europe into an ice age: The Claimant's evidence was that this was a scientific impossibility.

7. The film blames global warming for species losses including coral reef bleaching. The Government could not find any evidence to support this claim.

8. The film suggests that the Greenland ice covering could melt, causing sea levels to rise dangerously. The evidence is that Greenland will not melt for millennia.

9. The film suggests that the Antarctic ice covering is melting; the evidence was that it is in fact increasing.

10. The film suggests that sea levels could rise by seven meters, causing the displacement of millions of people. In fact, the evidence is that sea levels are expected to rise by about 40 centimeters over the next hundred years and that there is no such threat of massive migration.

11. The film claims that rising sea levels has caused the evacuation of certain Pacific islands to New Zealand. The Government are unable to substantiate this and the Court observed that this appears to be a false claim.

Nice cut and paste job. Normally when you quote word for word you reference where you got that material from...or is that a problem for you seeing that website might have an address like WWW.GLOBALWARMINGHOAX.COM

Hey guys, I was just posting what I considered to be humor. Sp? - humour.

 

Please don't get after each other about he subject.

I call it taking a cheap shot. Why does this biased political thread still have life?

all a part of musky fishing. Even the best see days of being skunked...even 2 days in a row! That spinning reel in the last photo doesn't really cut it as far as targetting muskies though.

Ya got me there. DOH!!

I had five rods to choose from and my rookie brother was still working on his casts so that rod and reel you saw in the photo was a good choice for him. He was happy with the small rod and reel and I was happy with the resulting smaller percentage of potential hookups of his lure to my body. Over the two days he developed a unique backhanded over the shoulder cast more akin to a Vince Carter basketball shot then to actual proven methods of casting. He also tried fishing several times with seaweed on his lure. He thought it had some extra attractant properties to it!! You can fault me on this...but I felt the muskies were safe on his rod.

I can't complain, it has been a good year with several personal bests and two new species...it would have been nice to a add a first muskie with my bro but that was not to be. I had previously taken out my brother and cousin Muskie fishing this time of year and we were skunked also. I have done some reading and slowly been improving the gear and tackle. We even waited until the last minute to book to make sure that weather would be ideal. We had a half day of cloudy breezy weather and a full day of mixed weather with sun and clouds. We focused strictly on muskie and unlike the last trip we picked a known muskie lake.

the weather was good.

It looked good at this point...we squeezed every second we could out of our time.

my bro around the time we had to shut it down and pack er up

Our results, not even one follow or look except for some waves that a large muskie made. We had pulled into a prime location and I stopped the motor. My brother looked over the bow, and asked what was causing those waves? From where I sat I looked over and said did they come from our boat? He said he didn't believe so. Then I asked if it could be caused by a current of some sort. Again he said he didn't believe so. We fished for a while and he then asked, if I had ever been to Marine land. I said no and he told me how much his kids liked it. About an hour later he comes out with he saw dolphin's that made the same sort of V wave patterns that he saw an hour ago

So keep the dream alive and tell us where we could improve

Conditions:

Known Muskie lake: two selected spots highly recommended.

A narrows, 59 degrees with access to deep water and big lake.

A smaller circular lake with access to deep water in the top half middle half of the lake. Water temp 56 degrees.

That Muskie we saw would indicate that she was moving slowly and cruising. With regard to water temperature what is ideal? With large pike it would have been the warmer water.

Depth: we generally fished in 20 ft of water but fished in water as shallow as 8 ft and as deep as 30 ft.

We mostly drift fished and threw everything from believers, to large Rapelas, to large diving cranks. We also tried large spoons, bucktails, spinners, large plastic..and smaller lures also. what didn't we try?

Retrieve: generally went with a slow retrieve but also did fast, medium fast, and pause and start.

Half day ehh...not bad, not bad at all.

Love those times when the stars align and you have that great window of fishing. Thanks for sharing.

Another fine report from the Bunkster, that sure looks like fun. The leaves are still on the trees? Don't you normally contend with ice and snow by now?