JohnF

And you prolly disagree that there's too much forced laughter on sports talk shows. JF

I told myself last year that it sounded like a good time, and had every intention of making it this year. Of course now I've made no plans for accommodation or a boat ride. If anyone has to cancel let me know. Perhaps I can fill in. I'm no Walleye/Pike fisherman. All I know is bass, but I have boxes of lures of all sizes and styles and a variety of rod/reel combos so I'm sure I'll have the right gear. I'm housebroken with only minor vices. Other than my pedantic personality the occasional cigar or pipeful is perhaps my most offensive habit. I'm old enough to have learned not to try to match the young guns beer for beer. A few drinks (brews or otherwise) each night is enough for me and beer is definitely NOT a breakfast food any more. My river fishing buddy Rob would be up for it too if there's enough room, or an extra cabin. I could probably talk him into providing some fishart as a prize. Here's an example that hangs over my computer desk here. He'd hate the lousy photography but I used the only camera that was handy. So if anyone knows of an extra spot or two (room and/or boat) let me know. For the moment I have no commitments for that weekend and I have a very very flexible work schedule. I don't expect a free ride. JF

A big ole Goliath Grouper (aka Jewfish) cuz I'd spend all my time in warm water, I'm too big to be in any critter foodchain, and the humans have declared me untouchable. JF

I disagree that everyone needs a gun of any kind in their home today, for now or the future. This is still Canada, and despite the efforts of the press to sensationalize an isolated problem usually usually involving street gangs, drug dealers, or psychopaths, we don't have to live in fear here. I think the NRA types have made an error in using old-style life insurance sales tactics (fear mongering) to support their battle for the vaunted second amendment. It's backfired on them, and we're suffering the blowback here, too, as evidenced by the kneejerk reaction on the part of some members of the public and the lawmaker/regulator/administrator types. There are lots of potential dangers out there today in our Canadian lives - and as far as ranking them, I doubt gun incidents involving non-criminals are pretty low on the charts. Why not look for solutions that address the problem directly rather than putting bandaids on the symptoms just because the fearful public can then see something being done. It's a placebo only to shut down gun ranges, about as effective for stopping gun crimes as making everyone wear a sweater at all times to prevent the common cold. A lot of folks will feel better because something's being done and never notice that the number of colds has not really declined. Much is made of statistics that say crime has decreased when guns are banned, but I'm reasonably certain that if a truly objective study was done in any of those countries and/or states that claim a decline in gun crimes there would be far more compelling reasons for the decline than the restrictions imposed on responsible gun owners. Unfortunately these studies always seem to come from a group or individual with a vested interest in the process. The NRA can produce just as many studies speaking to the positive effects on crime of allowing CCPs in a state as those who point to the various countries or cities that claim a decline due to a ban or severe restriction on guns. Surely there's a middle point that actually does work. I'm a typical Canuck living in a typical Canuck town and I can honestly say that never in my life have I felt like I needed to be armed with a gun to be safe. In my 60-something years I've had occasion to use my fists (reluctantly, infrequently & long ago), once an axe to scare off a drunk brandishing a broken bottle on our Ipperwash campsite, and once a hockey stick to shorten the life of a rather large dog that knocked me off my bike and was determinedly trying to remove a piece of my 12 year old ass. Other than that I've not felt seriously threatened in my life, certainly not to the point where I wanted a gun to deal with the threat. I suppose in some instances a gun would have been handy but I was able to cope with the tools at hand. Guns in Canada, outside the needs of the criminal element, the military and law enforcement, are for recreational use primarily, the occasional varmint eradication, and personal protection from dangerous critters for folks in some of the less developed parts of our country. I don't particularly want any vigilante protection. The police are doing just fine in my little corner of the world. I simply want to see the gun owners who act responsibly to continue to be able to enjoy their hobbies or work, whatever their needs, with as little interference from the regulators as possible, and trust that they in turn will respect the rights of those who choose to live in a world as unaffected by guns as possible. Over-regulating the law abiding gun owners will do little if anything practical to curb gun violence in our world. Criminals are notoriously bad at paying attention to the laws, and if they want guns, they'll get 'em, one way or t'uther. If the day ever comes when I feel the need the protection of a gun, laws be damned. I'll have a gun, and so, I'm sure, will any of the rest of you. Then we'll all be criminals because of some ill-conceived reactive legislation. That's just one man's opinion. YMMV. JF

Doesn't that presuppose a very literal interpretation of the entire body of Canadian law? JF

I didn't see a lot of mocking or bashing either, just emotion. I'm not a gun owner or a hunter but I respect the right of those who have a legal use for guns, or at least their right to the right to have guns. There's too much over-reaction being offered as a "solution" without much practical thought behind it. For the same reasons that some would have guns banned one could then argue that too many other useful items should be banned as well, and that only points out the irrationality behind some of the proposals like shutting down the gun ranges. Cars, farm machinery, tobacco and liquor are just a few of the most obvious ones that come to mind. Strikes me that this fear some folks have for guns would be more realistically directed at the outlaw gun users. Identify them and you'll soon realize that even if there was a way to deprive them of their guns, they'd still find ways to abuse the law-abiding public. Taking guns away from the responsible folks will do nothing of note to reduce the number of guns in criminal hands. To me those who call for wholesale gun elimination are placing themselves right alongside the P3TA folks who call for an all-out ban on fishing, and we know how that goes over in this crowd - it's selfish, irrational and unfair. Everyones' energy would be better spent supporting practical solutions that stand a chance of working to reduce gun related crime, not devising bandaids that will fall off as quick as they're applied and will only penalize the law-abiding folks. JF

She's hiding the wounds well. JF

That's what you are for ... to fend off attacking carp and to donate the sacrificial rod. If you do a good enough job she may even let you buy her dinner, or at least a Timmy's coffee. JF

Dunno if this is mentioned by someone else, but consider buying your beer at the Duty Free when you cross, unless you're stocking up on other libations. It's only about $17/24 cans right now which is great compared to the in-province price. Post note: I see others already mentioned this. Sorry. JF

Seems to me that this is about responsible gun owners paying the price for others less responsible, in fact criminal. Canadian lawmakers have enacted reasonably (some would say extremely) stringent steps to keep firearm ownership relatively safe for the general public. Ironically it's kneejerk reactions like this latest suggestion and the poorly conceived gun registration of a few years ago that are only meant to appease the bleeding heart types who never really made an effort to understand the true nature of the problem before pushing for the solution. And I don't buy the excuse that guns cause suicides. In the absence of a gun there's other ways available. They can't all be confiscated. Lawmakers might be better to start immediately after their election, ignoring the bleeding hearts, and proactively formulate an enforcement system of the existing body of law that will actually bring the desired results, and then hopefully they'd have even more support from both constituencies after the job's done and election time is near. A few obvious suggestions: 1. Really stiff punishments for illegal possession. 2. Huge punishments for crimes involving weapons, not just guns. 3. Regular renewals of all gun registrations with consideration given to the applicant's character in re responsible behaviour or demonstrated propensity to violence or irrational behaviour. That one will frighten some gun owners, for obvious reasons. Tough. Think about it before you give in to road rage. 4. Support from the responsible progun sector in Canada with the enforcement process. 5. Stiff penalties for gun owners whose registered weapons are stolen because they were improperly secured. 6. Resist CCP enabling laws. They're just a huge red flag to antigun elements. The gun owning sector should be making proactive recommendations for the controls, regulations and penalties to be imposed on all gun owners. Illegal gun users might be a bit put out by the suggestions but they're welcome to have input as a group as well. It puts more pressure on them and hopefully improves the lot (and image) of guns and those who have and use their guns legally. Let the serious impositions be against those who abuse guns, not those who are responsible. Every time a responsible gun owner hears an irrational solution like this latest from Miller, instead of crying "Unfair", he should counter with a suggestion of a positive nature, one that comes out of an informed process instead of kneejerk. Lead the way to a reasonable accommodation instead of kicking and screaming your way to a serious erosion of your rights. I know that giving up anything is against our nature, but sometimes a little give is needed. Canada doesn't have the huge schism between progun and antigun folk that they have in the States, yet. So far there's only an uninformed kneejerk reaction from some appalled by the news of gang shootings and the occasional psychopath running amok. Unfortunately most of the influence is due to access to American and Toronto news. They don't understand that circumstances are different here. The fact is that most of us nongun types are essentially indifferent to guns for now. If the progun folks in Canada are smart they can nip this in the bud now before it blossoms into an all or nothing fight like it appears to be in the States. One can't ignore that guns were invented as killing machines. I'm sure that there was no thought of starter pistols in the early days. That puts guns in a unique class, and makes them very susceptible to the fears, rational and irrational, of the general public. Accordingly the whole situation has to be handled with diplomacy, not obdurate reliance on historical precedent on the part of those who wish to defend their right to use a gun. Be part of the solution to your problem, not just one more nail in the coffin of responsible gun ownership. I know this will fall on some deaf ears. I've said it all before to some American friends who are extremely, rabidly progun, pro Second, and they vehemently resist any concessions. I contend that their attitude is hurting them, not helping. They disagree. I'd hate to see Canadians lose any more rights to have access to guns for the many things that guns can be responsibly used for. Respectfully JF

One wonders if his political ego has developed to such an extent that thinks he can gull the general public into believing that he's serving their needs by restricting legal ownership of handguns because this will stop the supply of guns to that segment of our society that uses guns illegally, or if he's dumb enough to think that cutting off the places to use guns legally will suddenly dry up the gun supply and their use and actually solve the problem. Either way it's political grandstanding. It's not too hard to see that the gun crimes are being committed by folks who could care less about the laws or lawful behaviour, and no amount of anti-gun regulation is going to do anything to hamper their fun. One partial solution I see might be to make the penalty for crimes involving guns heavier, as someone already suggested, heavy enough to make any but the hardest core villains think twice. Once some of these criminal lightweights who were just trying to impress their buddies (the other small time drug dealers in the hood) and protect their tiny turf start hearing from their jailed buddies about how much fun it is cuddling with Bubba in their jail cell every night for twenty years they might think twice. It may not matter to the hard-core criminal element, but it never has anyway. In any case I suspect the problem that's making the news these days is the neighbourhood punks grandstanding. Let's give 'em something to think about, and perhaps whatever minimal intellect they possess will let them see that the price of fleeting glory is too high. The hardcore criminals will always use guns because they can never be fully eliminated, the criminals or the guns, but how much of an impact does that kind of crime really have on our everyday lives? It's the punks shooting other punks that's getting the press these days. I'm not a gun owner any more, only because I have no need for a gun. I've thought about getting back into range shooting though, just for fun. To me there's something too over-the-top draconian about the idea of pols eradicating gun ranges from our world, if only because it takes away yet one more option for me to have a little fun and relaxation. It's too extreme, and too irrational, like cutting off your right leg to stop an ulcer on your left arm. If the good mayor wants to promote irrational solutions he should be prepared to wear the horns when folks point out his irrationality. Ask him for statistical evidence of why and how this will help. For now it's just kneejerk silliness that will appeal only to those of similarly irrational thinking. JF

Nice shots. We visited the Baltimore aquarium with the kids years ago and were blown away. It's easy to spend a day gawking at the fishies. It's pretty durned impressive, so if this one is bigger and better, it must be really really something. Several of my (diving) friends work as volunteers at the Baltimore and Seattle aquaria. They get to dive in the tanks to feed the fishies and clean up the fish poop. They say it's the greatest job in the world. JF

I think that's the key. Even if it looks okay now (the premium) it won't look like such a bargain in a few years as the principal drops. Term is yours to take with you whether or not you sell that house and the payout (Heaven forbid) isn't tied to the mortgage balance. Conventional wisdom always favours the term vs insurance through the bank. JF

Yeah. Thanks Dan. I guess soccer players are a tad more sensitive than us redneck hockey fans. Fact is, I'm pretty impressed with the stamina and atleticism of those little soccer dudes. I even like to watch it when World Cup or Olympics is on tv. When my kids were young I tried to get them to play soccer in the summer. I figured it would be great training for hockey. But they preferred baseball. In any case, I apologize if it sounded like I was knocking soccer. I won't joke about the serious things in life any more. JF

IT AIN'T HOCKEY! JF

EEEEWWWWHHHH! Now I gotta go wash my mouse hand. JF

Isn't this really just drawing the line between blatant self-promotion and fishing fun? Sometimes the two get crossed up and frankly, I'd rather run the risk of being exposed to a little promo for some member with a business interest than missing a chance to get at some real fish porn. And who knows, I may be in the market for a paid seeing eye dog to get me onto some real fish in an unfamilair environment, or a connection at a gear retailer. and who better than a contributor to our group? If I find anyone's posts offensively commercial and self-serving, I'll just ignore 'em, and mebbe even manage to get in a little adverse publicity for them later on. It's no big deal. If they're too blatant they'll hear about it. Hopefully the mods will see fit to just eliminate 'em. But members, I'm okay with them mentioning their businesses. After all, aren't we all just looking for more fun out of this? Fun can easily be a trip to Bass Pro or a jaunt out on the rivers or lakes with a pro guide, right? If it's too blatant we'll all gripe, and the message will get out - don't abuse the privilege here. Respectfully JF

Think positive. You're getting paid to fritter away a miserable cold day. The rest of us are just frittering. JF

If the heading hadn't said that was a Grizzly, I'd have guessed Koala. JF

Cynic that I am, I generally assume that the news story includes only the facts that make the story exciting. Most often it seems to only include that which makes the story interesting. Many details tend to take away from the drama of it all. JF

Mebbe he liked you. JF

You could just politely avert your eyes. JF

So we worry about disturbing the Bass on their nests. Should we be as worried about the Carp at this time of year? I'd really like to get out and nail some of these big boys but I hate to mess with them in the middle of spawning. They're probably entitled to the same consideration as Bass, aren't they, or are they simply indestructable? JF

Looks like the Detroit voters (like me) are coming out of the woodwork. Perhaps still shellshocked from last night. One of them musta voted for Dallas in error? JF

Just in case this isn't too late, Matt recommends- Wolf Creek at Mesquite (45 mins north) is not to be missed - also in that area Oasis In Henderson find Reflection Bay (may be private). It's the Three Tour Challenge tournament course. Closer to LV look for Paiute (Pete Dye course) He says LV courses generally are disappointing. Hit 'em straight. JF