bigfish1965

Change the output on your scanner to save it in .jpg format. I would guess you are using a Canon scanner and the included software?

I tried a few times to talk to you Dave, but you were surrounded by fans all the time. That and I spent most of my time trying to chat up the WFN hotties.

Being in a boat fishing is not differnet than fishing. Navigation includes all legal uses. There are so VERY few exceptions to the Act. You will generally find a Port Authrotiy in these instances.

There's no one in that boat TJ. Let's take her for a spin.

The town could charge an access fee but only if they are charging everyone else one as well. The fact that I am standing there fishing is not any of the town's concern or business.

I just finished reading a story in the St Catharines Standard. In order to use on of their river front parks for fishing, you will require a special fishing license from the town. The paper states that the license is 'free to town residents'. This indicates that either out of towners need not apply ot they will have to pay.. Obviously this is illegal. A group of us are challenging the town on this matter. only the province may require licensing for fishing and since the fish are not the property of the town, they may not restrict access to them This type of thing must be met with resistance. This is not the time for our normal apathetic response. Please email the members of the town council and let them know this is not acceptable and will not go unchallenged. The only permit I need to fish in the Province of Ontario is my Outdoors Card.

So clearly, in the absence of a Port Authority, there is no special rights granted to land owners over the water. Also, as has been mentioned, only the Province can dictate no fishing areas in public waterways where access is also public.

You can icefish until there is no more ice. However the non-portable huts must be off by March 15th

May the Year of the Golden Pig bring prosperity to your family! Kung Hey Fatt Choy from the Guay Lo.

Roger's fish.. I'm learning a new photo technique and roger was kind enough to allow me to use one of his pics as a model.

I was there today. Very busy. It is very much the same as previous years. I think thats where it is lacking. I've seen pretty much all the booths before. But I guess unless the lower their prices we won't see too many smaller, up and coming guys there. I did notice the celebs were especially good with the kids there. Tons of kids there today. They were all very eager to talk to the kids, so kudos to them for that. Saw Aaron and Barry, Italo, Shaun Rickard, Dave Mercer, Big Jim, Izumi et al. They were all pressing the flesh quite a bit (exception to Izumi) and doing their part. Was fun, but I bought nothing. THe only thing I needed no one had. My luck.

So now the basis of your argument rests on semantics. There is no degree of violation in the law. There is only guilty or not guilty. There is no difference at all in what you do and what file sharers do. The copyright forbids any copying or redistribution. The keyword is 'any'. People who download are not breaking any laws. This is why the government is now considering creating laws. Had it already been illegal, there would be no need for it. Record companies cannot 'file charges'. Charges only exist in criminal matters. The record companies may file a Civil Action in the US. To this end they have only sued SUPPLIERS not downloaders. That is simply because you cannot violate a copyright law by downloading, only by offering for download. As has been pointed out, music companies and artists receive a piece of the pie in the surcharge added onto each blank CD and DVD sold in Canada. This is to offset losses perceived by record companies. To this end, they have already been compensated. To seek further remuneration is absurd. By accepting the cash in the first place, one would make a compelling argument that they have at least tacitly accepted file sharing. The current action being taken by the record companies does not differentiate those who download music from the pro-file sharing artists versus the antis. Lon ago I had to accept that the internet was essentially the wild west of the 21st Century. In order to protect work I do, I make it horribly difficult for anyone to copy or use something I don't want reused. I can't prevent it completely, but I can make it difficult. Instead of availing themselves of new and unseemly DRM tecchnology, the record companies have simply chosen to do nothing. The exception is Sony who encrypted spyware into their CD's until it was discovered. The offending spyware was attached to their CD's without notification to users and if uninstalled from your computer, rendered your CD player inoperable. It was a good beginning to DRM, but horrendously designed. It did prevent copying by most people (yes even to your iPod) but the program ran constantly without the users knowledge and even went so far as to make itself stealthed. This program also contained numerous security flaws that left your computer open to attack. There only solution to the problem was to either decompile the CD on an already infected computer and then copy it without the bad software or download the songs from the internet.

I'd rather the MNR not fo to the show and have more CO's in the field. Sadly, it appears the government has left them with those options.

Okay let's remember a few things first. Filesharing is not illegal. Not at all. Downloading a file is also not illegal. When people say 'illegal' they think of Criminal Offenses. As long as you are not charging money, you are not doing anything criminal. Charging money for a copy of a song is piracy. That being said, allowing your songs to be downloaded is a violation of the user agreement that is in place when you purchase or receive a CD or other forms of retail music. This user agreement is a civil matter, not criminal. By downloading music you are not in violation of the user agreemnt because you have yet to enter into one. Now for those screaming 'thief' and using the term 'criminal' and 'illegal' remember this... It is the same violation as fielsharing if you do any of the following.. Copy your CD to your hard drive Make an mp3 compilation of your favourite songs for your car Copy your songs onto your iPod Lend your CD to a friend If you read the microscopic print, you will see that all of these actions fall under copying or redistributing and are subject to recourse via civil litigation. Let's suppose you bought a car and the car maker said..You can never lend your car to another, let anyone else drive it or ever sell this car to another person...after all they have to sell cars too and if ou just let your friends use yours, how are the poor car companies going to survive? The music industry talks out of both sides of their mouth. If they REALLY wanted people to refrain from filesharing, then they would do more in terms of DRM (digital rights management). Ripping a new DVD with the most current DRM is very difficult. Not impossible..just difficult. Many bands now actively encourage internt filesharing of their products. IF you play the game right it can actually make you alot of money. I downloaded several songs from a band called Seven Nations. Never heard of them before someone mentioned them to me. After finding I thoroughly enjoy the band, I have purchased all their CD's, shirts, gone to see them perform in New York and Florida and started a website for their fan club. If you play it right stuff like this doesn't cost you money. Even software like Photshop only weakly protects their products from copy. They know that few if any people will pay $1,000 for the program without having a good long poke around with it. Most Phtoshop legitimate owners started out with a cracked version. Had I received one of these emails your damm right I would have been filing a complaint with the Privacy Commisioner. It is a huge violation to give out someone's email address especially from an ISP perspective considering most ISP emails contain at least part of the customers real name. Look up the PIPEDA laws in Canada..very strict. Canada has some of the strictest privacy laws on earth.

Niagara is growing in leaps and bounds. You'd have a very good shot out here. Low housing costs and some nice areas, too. Oh yeah...lots of fishing, too.

I would think it is time for a fence.

I would think that you would need a typical 7 ft spinning or bait casting outfit. A fly rod might be a fun addition if you have the room. Typically in August the fish have slowed down in the heat. You may be looking for fish off of breaks near deep water or be fishing the evening and pre-dawn hours for best success. The smallies will typically respond to spinner baits, crank baits and leeches. The walleye on carnks like Husky Jerk, jigs and also leeches. Don't forget your shaker of salt!

I guess if you are going to eat it then the harvest method is pretty much irrelevant as long as it is legal. I dunno if I would eat a bottom dwelling fish that old, however. Seems to me they are too few in numbers to harvest at all.

For the first time EVER I am calling off work today due to snow. Got about 40 cm and drifting in places is well over a metre. Not driving in this crap for no one. Now I know I am old. Used to be a time when I loved driving in the nasty stuff.

Weird..I got carded today too. I looked at her and said I was 42. She still wanted ID. It was in the car...I was really dumbfounded. I got her to ask a 20 yr old young lady working in the store (the cashier serving me was mid 50's) how old she thought I was. The 20 yr olds never mistake me for under 25.

If you're bringing stuff up here to sell, I would suspect there'd be some paperwork to take care of ahead of time. You'd be importing stuff into the country.

Hope I get up there. Thursday is out for sure...maybe Friday or Saturday.

Not married are you........

I think we need a few set of pliers or bolt cutters. A few guys took the hooks really deep here.

I just got my court order yesterday. Damm tequila.